☀️ 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="Sinister" data-source="post: 53797" data-attributes="member: 2684"><p><span style="font-size: 9px"><strong>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.</strong></span></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 9px">let me show you…</span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-size: 9px">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></strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 9px">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.</span></span></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-size: 9px">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.</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 9px">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.</span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 9px">EVOLUTION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BOTH DIVERGEANT EVOLUTION AND CONVERGEANT EVOLUTION (YOUR ONLY LOOKING AT CONVERGEANT EVOLUTION)</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="color: black">There is a third type, which is known as PARALLEL EVOLUTION (something to keep in mind)</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"><strong>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.</strong></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">AGAIN READ ANYTHING ON DIVERGEANT EVOLUTION. Or else It would be like arguing physics without knowing simple Newtonian mechanics. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-size: 9px">But the biologists agree that the DNA keeps the organism within the parameters set by nature for a particular Genus.</span></span></p><p> </p><p><u><strong><span style="font-size: 9px">SAYS WHO? WHICH BIOLOGIST? SOURCE PLEASE? That’s utterly false. </span></strong></u></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">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’.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">Everything in nature exists in equilibrium including a gene pool. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"><strong>YOU INTRODUCE NEW GENES INTO A GENE POOL NOT THROUGH CROSS BREEDING BUT THROUGH RANDOM MUTATIONS. </strong></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"><strong>Sexual reproduction can pass down random point mutations within progeny….its not a very complicated phenomenon.</strong> </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">PROOF;</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">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. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">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. </span></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 9px">An entirely new gene pool can emerge from an already existing gene pool (both in larger and smaller organism). </span></strong></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">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.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="color: blue">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></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 9px">YOUR WRONG AGAIN. “SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST” IS A SINGLE VARIABLE IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 9px">YOU COMPLETELY LEFT OUT SEXUAL SELECTION. </span></strong></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"><strong>What you have stated above is an example of parallel evolution. Both species are evolving and surviving equally in a balanced equilibrium/ gene pool. </strong></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"><strong>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. </strong></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="color: blue"><span style="color: purple">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.</span></span></span></p><p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"><strong>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!</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"><strong>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). </strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"><strong>Like I said look into Parallel evolution… you have not been doing what I am telling you to do. </strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"><strong>THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘FIXITY OF FAMILIES’ IT IS IN FACT THE OPPOSITE … ASK ANY CONTEMPORARY GENETICIST or ZOOLOGIST.</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"><strong>START BY “ACTUALLY” READING ‘ORIGIN OF SPEICIES’ THEN LEAN INTO MODERN THEORIES ON EVOLUTION…YOU WILL GET ALL YOUR ANSWERS!</strong></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-size: 9px">no transitional forms between man and ape have been found so far.</span></span></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 9px">Is this a joke? Could you provide a source for this statement? just go look at the fossil record.</span></strong></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-size: 9px">According to Darwin the living species have developed from other living species but it is strange that there are no transitional forms today?</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">OMG …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.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="color: blue">They seem to say that over time, stone became amoebae, fish, snake deer, lion, and finally a monkey, which turned into man.</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">Hold up now! How did you get from STONE -à to Amoeba? The rest I agree with for reasons clearly discussed above. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">Conclusion:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">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?</span></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 9px">Who knows? = GOD (a temporary yet permanent cover-up…for knowledge that is yet to be learnt)</span></strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sinister, post: 53797, member: 2684"] [SIZE=1][B]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.[/B][/SIZE] [B][SIZE=1]let me show you…[/SIZE][/B] [B][COLOR=blue][SIZE=1]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”[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B] [COLOR=black][SIZE=1]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.[/SIZE][/COLOR] [B][COLOR=blue][SIZE=1]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.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B] [B][SIZE=1]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.[/SIZE][/B] [B][COLOR=black][SIZE=1]EVOLUTION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BOTH DIVERGEANT EVOLUTION AND CONVERGEANT EVOLUTION (YOUR ONLY LOOKING AT CONVERGEANT EVOLUTION)[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B] [B][SIZE=1][COLOR=black]There is a third type, which is known as PARALLEL EVOLUTION (something to keep in mind)[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B] [SIZE=1][B]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.[/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=1]AGAIN READ ANYTHING ON DIVERGEANT EVOLUTION. Or else It would be like arguing physics without knowing simple Newtonian mechanics. [/SIZE] [COLOR=blue][SIZE=1]But the biologists agree that the DNA keeps the organism within the parameters set by nature for a particular Genus.[/SIZE][/COLOR] [U][B][SIZE=1]SAYS WHO? WHICH BIOLOGIST? SOURCE PLEASE? That’s utterly false. [/SIZE][/B][/U] [SIZE=1]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’.[/SIZE] [SIZE=1]Everything in nature exists in equilibrium including a gene pool. [/SIZE] [SIZE=1][B]YOU INTRODUCE NEW GENES INTO A GENE POOL NOT THROUGH CROSS BREEDING BUT THROUGH RANDOM MUTATIONS. [/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=1][B]Sexual reproduction can pass down random point mutations within progeny….its not a very complicated phenomenon.[/B] [/SIZE] [SIZE=1]PROOF;[/SIZE] [SIZE=1]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. [/SIZE] [SIZE=1]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. [/SIZE] [B][SIZE=1]An entirely new gene pool can emerge from an already existing gene pool (both in larger and smaller organism). [/SIZE][/B] [SIZE=1]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.[/SIZE] [SIZE=1][COLOR=blue]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?[/COLOR][/SIZE] [B][SIZE=1]YOUR WRONG AGAIN. “SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST” IS A SINGLE VARIABLE IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY[/SIZE][/B] [B][SIZE=1]YOU COMPLETELY LEFT OUT SEXUAL SELECTION. [/SIZE][/B] [SIZE=1][B]What you have stated above is an example of parallel evolution. Both species are evolving and surviving equally in a balanced equilibrium/ gene pool. [/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=1][B]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. [/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=1][COLOR=blue][COLOR=purple]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.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE] [SIZE=1][B]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![/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=1][B]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). [/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=1][B]Like I said look into Parallel evolution… you have not been doing what I am telling you to do. [/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=1][B]THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘FIXITY OF FAMILIES’ IT IS IN FACT THE OPPOSITE … ASK ANY CONTEMPORARY GENETICIST or ZOOLOGIST.[/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=1][B]START BY “ACTUALLY” READING ‘ORIGIN OF SPEICIES’ THEN LEAN INTO MODERN THEORIES ON EVOLUTION…YOU WILL GET ALL YOUR ANSWERS![/B][/SIZE] [COLOR=blue][SIZE=1]no transitional forms between man and ape have been found so far.[/SIZE][/COLOR] [B][SIZE=1]Is this a joke? Could you provide a source for this statement? just go look at the fossil record.[/SIZE][/B] [COLOR=blue][SIZE=1]According to Darwin the living species have developed from other living species but it is strange that there are no transitional forms today?[/SIZE][/COLOR] [SIZE=1]OMG …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.[/SIZE] [SIZE=1][COLOR=blue]They seem to say that over time, stone became amoebae, fish, snake deer, lion, and finally a monkey, which turned into man.[/COLOR][/SIZE] [SIZE=1]Hold up now! How did you get from STONE -à to Amoeba? The rest I agree with for reasons clearly discussed above. [/SIZE] [SIZE=1]Conclusion:[/SIZE] [SIZE=1]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?[/SIZE] [B][SIZE=1]Who knows? = GOD (a temporary yet permanent cover-up…for knowledge that is yet to be learnt)[/SIZE][/B] [/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