☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Evolution & Sikhism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="P_Sikh" data-source="post: 53775" data-attributes="member: 4765"><p><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">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. </span></span></span></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: red"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">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"!</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: purple">This statement is completely false</span></strong><strong><span style="color: blue">. 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</span></strong></span></span></p><p> </p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Life descended from Space</span></span></strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Matter transformed itself into life</span></span></strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Sugar theory</span></span></strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Choanoflagellate theory</span></span></strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Amino-acid Theory</span></span></strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Spontaneous Generation Theory</span></span></strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Higgs Boson Theory: </span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">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. </span></strong></li> </ul><p></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: red"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">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")</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: red"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">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.</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: red"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">THERE ARE VERY LITTLE LOOPHOLES IN THE SCIENCE OF GENETICS</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">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.) </span></span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: #993366">Nature permits crossbreeding only within limits.</span></strong><strong><span style="color: blue"> 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. </span></strong><strong><span style="color: #993366">No botonist has succeeded in changing maize to mustard or vice versa.</span></strong></span></span></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">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”</span></span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">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)</span></span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">“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).</span></span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">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. </span></span></strong><strong><span style="color: purple"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">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).</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">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. </span></span></strong><strong><span style="color: purple"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">In genetics humans are closer to Chimpanzees </span></span></strong><strong><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">but chimpanzees cannot swim and hold their breath in water like humans. They fear water and easily get drowned. Humans also consume</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">more water than chimpanzees. </span></span></strong><strong><span style="color: purple"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">But it is misleading because the inner structure of humans is comparatively closer to a frog than to the ape world</span></span></strong><strong><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"> and no transitional forms between man and ape have been found so far. </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">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. </span></span></strong><strong><span style="color: purple"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">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.</span></span></strong> <strong><span style="color: purple"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">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.</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">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?</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">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</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">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? </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">“Divine creation is the only possible initiator of life” (Luis Pasteur quoted in Scientific American 1965 p.52)</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">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).</span></span></strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="P_Sikh, post: 53775, member: 4765"] [COLOR=blue][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]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. [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT] [B][COLOR=red][FONT=Verdana]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"![/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=red][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=purple]This statement is completely false[/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=blue]. 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[/COLOR][/B][/FONT][/SIZE] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [LIST] [*][B][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Life descended from Space[/FONT][/SIZE][/B] [*][B][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Matter transformed itself into life[/FONT][/SIZE][/B] [*][B][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Sugar theory[/FONT][/SIZE][/B] [*][B][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Choanoflagellate theory[/FONT][/SIZE][/B] [*][B][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Amino-acid Theory[/FONT][/SIZE][/B] [*][B][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Spontaneous Generation Theory[/FONT][/SIZE][/B] [*][B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Higgs Boson Theory: [/SIZE][/FONT][/B][B][FONT=Verdana]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. [/FONT][/B][B][/B][/LIST][B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=red][FONT=Verdana]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")[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=red][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=red][FONT=Verdana]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.[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=red][FONT=Verdana]THERE ARE VERY LITTLE LOOPHOLES IN THE SCIENCE OF GENETICS[/FONT][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=red][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]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.) [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=#993366]Nature permits crossbreeding only within limits.[/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=blue] 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. [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=#993366]No botonist has succeeded in changing maize to mustard or vice versa.[/COLOR][/B][/FONT][/SIZE] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]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”[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]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)[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]“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).[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana]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. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=purple][FONT=Verdana]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).[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana]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. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=purple][FONT=Verdana]In genetics humans are closer to Chimpanzees [/FONT][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana]but chimpanzees cannot swim and hold their breath in water like humans. They fear water and easily get drowned. Humans also consume[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana]more water than chimpanzees. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=purple][FONT=Verdana]But it is misleading because the inner structure of humans is comparatively closer to a frog than to the ape world[/FONT][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana] and no transitional forms between man and ape have been found so far. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana]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. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=purple][FONT=Verdana]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.[/FONT][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=purple][FONT=Verdana]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.[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana]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?[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana]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[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana]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? [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana]“Divine creation is the only possible initiator of life” (Luis Pasteur quoted in Scientific American 1965 p.52)[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana]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).[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Evolution & Sikhism
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top