Evolution - Fact Or Fiction?
Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?
Evolution is a theory of speciation and the best explanation currently available for the diversity of life that exists. In this respect it is certainly not fiction. There are many examples of evolution occuring as we speak.
Is there another view that anyone else can espouse that has the same ammount of predictive and explanatory power?
Evolution is a theory of speciation and the best explanation currently available for the diversity of life that exists. In this respect it is certainly not fiction. There are many examples of evolution occuring as we speak.
Is there another view that anyone else can espouse that has the same ammount of predictive and explanatory power?
BabbarSher
SPNer
Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?
I thinm Dear Muslim's point in asking for views is because of the rejection of the claims of Evolution by Islam.
For that matter Chrsitanity, Judaism and Hindusim also seem to reject evolution as they harp about the Adam and Eve story.
It is interesting to note that despite all these religions decrying each other - yes even hindusim has the same story of Adam and Eve, albeit with different names, they seem to have borrowed extensively in mthology/legends and stories of yore from each other.
As of now, the scientific community has accepted evolution as the path to current life form. Even now the society is experiencing evolution - ever noticed the kids with much sharper minds then we had in comparable age.
Akal Sahai
I thinm Dear Muslim's point in asking for views is because of the rejection of the claims of Evolution by Islam.
For that matter Chrsitanity, Judaism and Hindusim also seem to reject evolution as they harp about the Adam and Eve story.
It is interesting to note that despite all these religions decrying each other - yes even hindusim has the same story of Adam and Eve, albeit with different names, they seem to have borrowed extensively in mthology/legends and stories of yore from each other.
As of now, the scientific community has accepted evolution as the path to current life form. Even now the society is experiencing evolution - ever noticed the kids with much sharper minds then we had in comparable age.
Akal Sahai
nsbuttar
SPNer
Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?
It is neither entirely facts nor fiction. It is a theory. It has emerged from observatiions. It is something you believe to be true, but u ave no proof, just your observations. As soon as you find a contradiction in your observations, the theory dissolves.
It is neither entirely facts nor fiction. It is a theory. It has emerged from observatiions. It is something you believe to be true, but u ave no proof, just your observations. As soon as you find a contradiction in your observations, the theory dissolves.
Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?
The term "theory" in science has a very specific meaning and does not just mean that someone believes it. The scientific method is rigorous, testable and verifiable and towers above any other method for describing the natural world. It is not as though the theory of evolution results from simple observations of behaviour.
I think the mistake that people make is believing that science and religion collide --they do not and are complimentary. Now I'll use the much cited story of Adam and Eve. As always with religious stories someone picks and chooses what is to be taken literally and what is metaphoric. Given, that there is strong scientific evidence for the existence of a common ancestor for the higher primates and humans (we share 95% of our genome with this group) why would we continue to stubbornly believe that no evolution has occured in the face of years of scientific evidence suggesting otherwise?
Babar Sher thank-you for the clarification. In terms of Islam and evolution the above points give my view on the matter. In my view, religion should play no role in explaining creation. There is nothing inconsistent with saying that God created the world and a part of that world is a process called evolution. To me it is the equivalent of arguing against electricity on the grounds that it somehow takes away from God --rather electricity is a part of the world that God created.
There is plenty of proof for evolution --far more than any other view. It is hardly based on "your observations" like any good scientific theory it has been test, retested, veified and provides the best explanation possible for the many different forms of life. For example, many animals share genetic codes that serve as dramatic evidence for common ancestors (primates and humans are a prime example of this). Another good example of this is that the vast majority of animals have a "face" (2 eyes above a nose and a mouth) all the result of a common ancestor. Are you suggesting that the entire field of genetics is something that we just "believe to be true"? How about other fields of science?
The term "theory" in science has a very specific meaning and does not just mean that someone believes it. The scientific method is rigorous, testable and verifiable and towers above any other method for describing the natural world. It is not as though the theory of evolution results from simple observations of behaviour.
I think the mistake that people make is believing that science and religion collide --they do not and are complimentary. Now I'll use the much cited story of Adam and Eve. As always with religious stories someone picks and chooses what is to be taken literally and what is metaphoric. Given, that there is strong scientific evidence for the existence of a common ancestor for the higher primates and humans (we share 95% of our genome with this group) why would we continue to stubbornly believe that no evolution has occured in the face of years of scientific evidence suggesting otherwise?
Babar Sher thank-you for the clarification. In terms of Islam and evolution the above points give my view on the matter. In my view, religion should play no role in explaining creation. There is nothing inconsistent with saying that God created the world and a part of that world is a process called evolution. To me it is the equivalent of arguing against electricity on the grounds that it somehow takes away from God --rather electricity is a part of the world that God created.
Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?
hello jee's
evolution fact or fiction??
let me re address the question for this forum
CONCIOUS EVOLUTION. FACT OR FICTION??
this is the real issue at heart
are we evolving conciously. look at all religions and philosphy
as man becomes more conciouss and aware of his surroundings, in terms of science, art, religion
are not all religion essentially the same if you do a timeline of history
compare with knowledge at time, you see parrelells unreal if this isn't true
are you concious than your parents fact you have computer, tv etc, and they still use telephone.
how will our childrens concioussness evolve
a truly universal one i hope and pray.
is concioussness evolving through space, time, matter
has the galaxy gone through an unfolding, a learning,
from the first matter god created is it not all flowing , growing from there
through the stars, planets universe, this earth the planets, the animals.
finally us as perfect creation of god's image. co-create of our own existence.
look 99.9% of all animals lived have already been extinct.
so are we just working towards god's perfect architype of us.
'sacha surma'
we have mitochondria in our cells which were one time separate beings
then our bodies merged with theirs
now all energy you use in your body is stored in these 'foreign bodies'
i don't believe darwin evolution - very limited to physical material world
regards my brothers
hello jee's
evolution fact or fiction??
let me re address the question for this forum
CONCIOUS EVOLUTION. FACT OR FICTION??
this is the real issue at heart
are we evolving conciously. look at all religions and philosphy
as man becomes more conciouss and aware of his surroundings, in terms of science, art, religion
are not all religion essentially the same if you do a timeline of history
compare with knowledge at time, you see parrelells unreal if this isn't true
are you concious than your parents fact you have computer, tv etc, and they still use telephone.
how will our childrens concioussness evolve
a truly universal one i hope and pray.
is concioussness evolving through space, time, matter
has the galaxy gone through an unfolding, a learning,
from the first matter god created is it not all flowing , growing from there
through the stars, planets universe, this earth the planets, the animals.
finally us as perfect creation of god's image. co-create of our own existence.
look 99.9% of all animals lived have already been extinct.
so are we just working towards god's perfect architype of us.
'sacha surma'
we have mitochondria in our cells which were one time separate beings
then our bodies merged with theirs
now all energy you use in your body is stored in these 'foreign bodies'
i don't believe darwin evolution - very limited to physical material world
regards my brothers
Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?
Brother 21khalsa13,
Although I am sympathetic to what I think that you are saying I'm not sure what you mean. The consciousness that you mention at first seems to be very physically/scientifically based --a sort of awareness of surroundings, etc. This can certainly be measured and is certainly described by science. The other stuff you mention seems unmeasurable and is very unclear to me. I can think of many different meanings for the term "consciousness" (phenomenal -how something feels, content --propostional or thoughts or ideas that I have that lead me to reason, state consciousness --the state of being aware, etc.) but am unsure what it is that we can say is shared by a galaxy, mitochondria, etc and how it can develop.
Although I can certainly understand and am sympathetic toward pantheism (everything is god), I have trouble understanding how one can consistently hold this view while maintaining that the universe can become "more" conscious --according to this view it would seem that everything already is conscious. In fact, you state that you have problem with darwin's physicalism yet the notion of more of something (thus quantifiable) is clearly in the physicalist/scientific paradigm.
The way I understand what you have written you are staunch believer in a dichotomy between mind/consciousness and body/physical stuff. However, given what I take your position to be it would seem more reasonable to maintain a modified monisitic position (that mind and body are two expressions of the same stuff) --in which case discounting darwin as to physical would be a misnomer.
What is your notion of a "development" of the universe based on? I can think of two large systems that hold such a view (Samkhya in Indian philosophy and Aristotle in Western Philosophy) but this is only based upon assumptions nothing more.
Once again, I do have sympathies for where I think that you are headed but would like to understand it better.
Thanks,
Ravi Singh
Brother 21khalsa13,
Although I am sympathetic to what I think that you are saying I'm not sure what you mean. The consciousness that you mention at first seems to be very physically/scientifically based --a sort of awareness of surroundings, etc. This can certainly be measured and is certainly described by science. The other stuff you mention seems unmeasurable and is very unclear to me. I can think of many different meanings for the term "consciousness" (phenomenal -how something feels, content --propostional or thoughts or ideas that I have that lead me to reason, state consciousness --the state of being aware, etc.) but am unsure what it is that we can say is shared by a galaxy, mitochondria, etc and how it can develop.
Although I can certainly understand and am sympathetic toward pantheism (everything is god), I have trouble understanding how one can consistently hold this view while maintaining that the universe can become "more" conscious --according to this view it would seem that everything already is conscious. In fact, you state that you have problem with darwin's physicalism yet the notion of more of something (thus quantifiable) is clearly in the physicalist/scientific paradigm.
The way I understand what you have written you are staunch believer in a dichotomy between mind/consciousness and body/physical stuff. However, given what I take your position to be it would seem more reasonable to maintain a modified monisitic position (that mind and body are two expressions of the same stuff) --in which case discounting darwin as to physical would be a misnomer.
I also have problems with this statement. There is nothing to suggest that increased speciation (evolution) is going to make us closer to "god's perfect architype". Despite what people commonly believe evolution does not necesarily mean a "better" organism. In many cases (due mostly to artificial selection) the changes that are "selected" are just a lucky fluke (ex. small mamals survived the mass extinction event around the time of the dinosaurs due to the relatively smaller resources required because of their size --mamals are not necesarrily "better" but rather lucky).
What is your notion of a "development" of the universe based on? I can think of two large systems that hold such a view (Samkhya in Indian philosophy and Aristotle in Western Philosophy) but this is only based upon assumptions nothing more.
Once again, I do have sympathies for where I think that you are headed but would like to understand it better.
Thanks,
Ravi Singh
Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?
refer to earlier post
we have 3 realms we can currently work with
virtual/spiritual
mental
physical
in the virtual realm there is perfection
god's archetypes of life
in the mental realm is life's thriving since the begining to reach these heights of existence.
in the physical we wait patiently for god to manifest in our everday world
-> sat yug again
i believe sat yug has always been here
just takes strength of of being to align ourselves to it
i. all the prophets , bhagats, gurus, gods. have
we still learning therefore we seek
therefore we sikh ------------> saikhyia
lots of love
yours
refer to earlier post
we have 3 realms we can currently work with
virtual/spiritual
mental
physical
in the virtual realm there is perfection
god's archetypes of life
in the mental realm is life's thriving since the begining to reach these heights of existence.
in the physical we wait patiently for god to manifest in our everday world
-> sat yug again
i believe sat yug has always been here
just takes strength of of being to align ourselves to it
i. all the prophets , bhagats, gurus, gods. have
we still learning therefore we seek
therefore we sikh ------------> saikhyia
lots of love
yours
Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?
The evolutionary theory (at least in regards to humans) is rejected by many religous groups in favor of the story in Gensis. The story not only speaks of the divine creation of man, but lays reason for the philosophy of women being subservient to men (esp. their husband).
Ironically, this was the reason the apostle Peter gave for women (but not men) to cover their heads when they pray.
1 Corninthians 11:
7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
(New International Version)
The evolutionary theory (at least in regards to humans) is rejected by many religous groups in favor of the story in Gensis. The story not only speaks of the divine creation of man, but lays reason for the philosophy of women being subservient to men (esp. their husband).
Ironically, this was the reason the apostle Peter gave for women (but not men) to cover their heads when they pray.
1 Corninthians 11:
7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
(New International Version)
S|kH
SPNer
Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?
http://www.mesora.org/dougtaylor/evolution.html
http://www.mesora.org/dougtaylor/evolution2.html
Good read, don't necessarily agree with it, but it's interesting.
I've always been an ID person anyway, I'll make my debate soon (after tuesday's exam next week) then I'm free for 3 weeks.
http://www.mesora.org/dougtaylor/evolution.html
http://www.mesora.org/dougtaylor/evolution2.html
Good read, don't necessarily agree with it, but it's interesting.
I've always been an ID person anyway, I'll make my debate soon (after tuesday's exam next week) then I'm free for 3 weeks.
Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?
S]kh,
Interesting link but I take issue with several points:
Link 1
“Suppose that we have a population in which 3 alleles, A, S, and C, are all initially present. AA is found in virtually every member of the population, and the following conditions hold:
AS is fitter than AA;
SS is lethal;
C is recessive to A (that is, AC and AA have the same phenotype and, in consequence, the same fitness;
CS is inferior in fitness to AA;
CC is the fittest allelic pair.
What will happen to the population? Answer: C is eliminated; thus the fittest combination, CC, although initially present in the population, not only fails to become fixed but indeed is driven out ... Because of the initial preponderance of AA alleles, S alleles occur most frequently in AS combinations, and C alleles turn up in AC combinations, which, because C is recessive, display the AA phenotype. The population thus moves toward a balanced polymorphism between A and S, with a few C alleles still present. Once the polymorphism is reached, selection then works to drive out the rare C alleles … So, despite the fact that CC is the best available genotype, natural selection works to displace C from the population”
The rest of the link’s argument do not follow as the interpretation of the theory of evolution is entirely incorrect.
Link 2
Although, because this link is based on the same misinterperation as link 1, the argument is irrelevant, it still raises an interesting issue about abstract thinking.
Despite the fact that “survival” and selection of systems is a misnomer (see above), lets us assume for the purposes of this argument that he is correct that only those things required for survival would be selected. There is still ample reasoning as to why abstract thought would lead to greater survival.
Abstract thinking could be an important skill in hunting. In fact, many theorists cite this as the reason for why the Neanderthals went extinct (the homonids that we evolved from developed the capacity for language whereas the Neanderthals did not). Incidentally, the ability to speak leads to a serious risk that if survival (as it is argued for in the link) were the sole reason for evolution would surely have not been selected (again as it is argued for in the link). It is because we can speak that we can choke –an immense disadvantage as it can lead to death. Of course, since the ability to communicate greatly enhances the ability to hunt and language is the basis for thought there is an immense advantage to it that far outweighs the possibility of choking.
Ravi Singh
S]kh,
Interesting link but I take issue with several points:
Link 1
Incorrect. Evolution is not "survival of the fittest" this is not how Darwin put it at all. The term "survival of the fittest" was an intrepretation used by "sociobiologist" to justify racism. Evolution is about the differentiation of species --not about survival. "Strength" plays no part in it, certain mutations/characteristics become selected for a number of reasons leading to different species. Those characteristics that get selected are not always the "best" in any sense. Natural selection does not always lead to the "fittest" or "best" systems as an example see below (taken with slight modifications from “The Fragmentation of Reason”,p.67 by Stephen Stich).
“Suppose that we have a population in which 3 alleles, A, S, and C, are all initially present. AA is found in virtually every member of the population, and the following conditions hold:
AS is fitter than AA;
SS is lethal;
C is recessive to A (that is, AC and AA have the same phenotype and, in consequence, the same fitness;
CS is inferior in fitness to AA;
CC is the fittest allelic pair.
What will happen to the population? Answer: C is eliminated; thus the fittest combination, CC, although initially present in the population, not only fails to become fixed but indeed is driven out ... Because of the initial preponderance of AA alleles, S alleles occur most frequently in AS combinations, and C alleles turn up in AC combinations, which, because C is recessive, display the AA phenotype. The population thus moves toward a balanced polymorphism between A and S, with a few C alleles still present. Once the polymorphism is reached, selection then works to drive out the rare C alleles … So, despite the fact that CC is the best available genotype, natural selection works to displace C from the population”
The rest of the link’s argument do not follow as the interpretation of the theory of evolution is entirely incorrect.
Link 2
Although, because this link is based on the same misinterperation as link 1, the argument is irrelevant, it still raises an interesting issue about abstract thinking.
Despite the fact that “survival” and selection of systems is a misnomer (see above), lets us assume for the purposes of this argument that he is correct that only those things required for survival would be selected. There is still ample reasoning as to why abstract thought would lead to greater survival.
Abstract thinking could be an important skill in hunting. In fact, many theorists cite this as the reason for why the Neanderthals went extinct (the homonids that we evolved from developed the capacity for language whereas the Neanderthals did not). Incidentally, the ability to speak leads to a serious risk that if survival (as it is argued for in the link) were the sole reason for evolution would surely have not been selected (again as it is argued for in the link). It is because we can speak that we can choke –an immense disadvantage as it can lead to death. Of course, since the ability to communicate greatly enhances the ability to hunt and language is the basis for thought there is an immense advantage to it that far outweighs the possibility of choking.
Ravi Singh
Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?
"" Only the strong survive. The weak die off. The need to continue his physical existence is what has shaped man into who he is today. ""
NO. This is NOT how Darwin explained the theory of evolution.
Darwin's description of Natural Selection describes how living beings naturally over-reproduce, and how species have a good amount of varience within themselves...such as the textbook example of how 100 years ago, the majority of a certain type of moths had darker wings, as coal pollution tended to darken their environment. However now, with cleaner fuels and more attention to pollution, the majority of the same type of moth has lighter wings. That has nothing to do with how big the moth is, or how strong the moth is.
The need to continue physical existance? In other words...having a sex drive! I don't believe that human babies are divinely placed, I am confident that we as humans have to do a bit of (ahem) work to bring them in to this world...the mechanics of such, we probably would NOT do had we not had the urges to do so.
Some humans have genetics that give their face a particular shape...oval, round, heart-shaped, triangle, etc. Some humans have genetics that render disabling or disfiguring conditions. Some humans have genetics that render them sterile.
Are genetically disabled/disfigured people the majority of the human population? Not now. But what if such a thing met mainstream acceptance as a desirable trait? Would the frequency of the disabled/disfiguring traits increase? I'd say yes.
It follows that should the majority of the population be genetically sterile, then we wouldn't have much of a population for long.
But the shape of one's face...just as much determined by genetics as the other two examples...has little to do with one's ability or desireability as a sex partner. Hence, we have humans of all races that sport many different shaped faces.
Does that make sense?
"" Only the strong survive. The weak die off. The need to continue his physical existence is what has shaped man into who he is today. ""
NO. This is NOT how Darwin explained the theory of evolution.
Darwin's description of Natural Selection describes how living beings naturally over-reproduce, and how species have a good amount of varience within themselves...such as the textbook example of how 100 years ago, the majority of a certain type of moths had darker wings, as coal pollution tended to darken their environment. However now, with cleaner fuels and more attention to pollution, the majority of the same type of moth has lighter wings. That has nothing to do with how big the moth is, or how strong the moth is.
The need to continue physical existance? In other words...having a sex drive! I don't believe that human babies are divinely placed, I am confident that we as humans have to do a bit of (ahem) work to bring them in to this world...the mechanics of such, we probably would NOT do had we not had the urges to do so.
Some humans have genetics that give their face a particular shape...oval, round, heart-shaped, triangle, etc. Some humans have genetics that render disabling or disfiguring conditions. Some humans have genetics that render them sterile.
Are genetically disabled/disfigured people the majority of the human population? Not now. But what if such a thing met mainstream acceptance as a desirable trait? Would the frequency of the disabled/disfiguring traits increase? I'd say yes.
It follows that should the majority of the population be genetically sterile, then we wouldn't have much of a population for long.
But the shape of one's face...just as much determined by genetics as the other two examples...has little to do with one's ability or desireability as a sex partner. Hence, we have humans of all races that sport many different shaped faces.
Does that make sense?
CaramelChocolate
SPNer
Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?
BabbarSher, Hindus do NOT believe in the Abrahamic creation story nor do they believe in Adam and Eve.
BabbarSher, Hindus do NOT believe in the Abrahamic creation story nor do they believe in Adam and Eve.
vijaydeep Singh
SPNer
Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?
Ek Oankar Wahiguru Ji Ki Fateh
evolution is contious state of creation by God.
Ek Oankar Wahiguru Ji Ki Fateh
evolution is contious state of creation by God.
Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?
Dear Khalsa Ji,
I am of the opinion that evolution is a fact. Each man carries a proof of it on his chest. The two nipple like dots and the associated darkened circle around it on the chest is the proof that creator had used the woman's body as template to create man. This is called evolution.
There was never any functional need for these dots and red patches to exist on man's chest. The creator has left a tell tale mark in the process of evolution for we humans to discover that man came from woman and not the other way round.
With love and respect for all.
Amarpal Singh
Dear Khalsa Ji,
I am of the opinion that evolution is a fact. Each man carries a proof of it on his chest. The two nipple like dots and the associated darkened circle around it on the chest is the proof that creator had used the woman's body as template to create man. This is called evolution.
There was never any functional need for these dots and red patches to exist on man's chest. The creator has left a tell tale mark in the process of evolution for we humans to discover that man came from woman and not the other way round.
With love and respect for all.
Amarpal Singh
All i would like to say is the moderators of this site are slanders and liars, why? because my fisrt post was changed and edited, completely changing my post and deleting a relevant link which i provided. I cant believe the moderators of this site were so low, damn im disappointed.
Hi,Would you be kind enough to let us know, what contents were edited? Most of us here realize your controversial and sometimes insulting stand on a few issues. Still, we stood firm to keep your posts as-it-is just as a show to people how far some people go nowadays!Thanks for your help.Arvind.muslim said:
Well Arvind, if you find the moderator who did edit it you would find the message was neither insulting or in anyway rude. Missing parts to the post are as follows; important links to webistes containing interesting information regarding evolution and a warm friendly message to all spn members.
psst heres the link, grab it before they delete it :rofl!!:
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1245
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1245
Hi Muslim,We respect member's posts. I encourage you to post it back. I am not aware of any mod editing contents of your posts as of now. Site admin Aman may be able to give a better pic, if he has some tool to look at the history of posts.fyi, rt now, there is site upgrade going on, and it has only affected past one day activities on SPN. But I dont believe, that wud hv affected ur past posts. However, if you posted something within past 24 hours, then Site admin is already in process of restoring so many posts, u may hv observed this by now.Anyway, Let us know by giving URL of which post you are talking abt. We will do our best to meet our member's satisfaction.Regards.
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
Latest Activity
-
-
-
-
Punjabi ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਦੀ ਸਮਾਜਿਕ ਸੰਵੇਦਨਸ਼ੀਲਤਾ ਤੇ ਅੰਤਰ-ਧਰਮ ਸੰਵਾਦ
- Latest: dalvinder45