Just wanted to know what the Gupshuppers think?
What about the homo electrus bones? and lucy?
[quote]
Originally posted by SPAWN:
Just wanted to know what the Gupshuppers think?
What about the homo electrus bones? and lucy?
[/quote]
I would say that Darwinistic Evolution fits the facts more than any other theory.
Has it been proved? Well, yes and no. Part of the problem with evolution is that it takes many, many generations to see the effects. Evolutionary concepts have been seen in the lab, however, for smaller organisms with very small genomes.
But if one really believes that evolution is a myth, and that Judaic creationism is correct, I don't believe that there is enough evidence, simply because you really can't witness evolution on a grand scale.
While we talk about evolution of mankind, maybe people who are stern believers of Islam or other religions differ, but if you see the picture as a whole, I don't see any reason not to believe in his theory.
Everybody would agree that the animals know present on the face of earth were not there as they are now say two million years ago and the animals at that time were not there about 10 million years ago. Same thing is true for human beings. Our Genes mutate in a set of patterns and once in a while differently and the strong gene always tend to overcome others and create something different from the previous one, better.
This shows that both Theory of Evolution and the Survial of Fittest are actually time proven facts which can't be denied. But as this discussion has been opened in a religious thread, don't be surprised if people challenge it.
The "Abrahamic" religions (as Indian's call them) - Islam, Christianity and Judaism reject Darwin's theory of evolution. But it would be interesting to know what the "Eastern" religions - Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism etc say?
First of all, lets take a look at it from the religious point of view. Nowhere does Allah say that humans came from monkeys. Not in Islam, nor in any other religion. I am pointing to Christianity and Juadism, since these are considered to be from God.
If we look at Darwin's theory from a scientific point if view, we don't have enough evidence either. Darwinism is rather a philosophy than science. Darwinism just came up with this idea to prove that white men are superior than other races. He proves this by telling us that white people are more "evolved" than other races. Evolutionists are still looking for that missing link between humans and apes. A lot of things they come up is full of bull. For example, there is a museum, I think in Britain, where there is a display of a skull which is supposed to be that of half human and half ape. The skull was recently found to be be made by superimposing an orang utan and a human skull. This hoax was done to prove that Darwin was right.
If anyone is interested in this topic they can read the book 'Evolution Deceit' by Harun Yahya. This book explains clearly why Darwinism can't be right.
[This message has been edited by Shakir75 (edited September 21, 2000).]
Nowhere in evolution does it say that humans came from monkeys. Evolution is not linear, and all it says is that monkeys and humans came from a common ancestor.
Hinduism, except for some laggard creation myths here and there (which, IMO, are more poetical elements than statements of fact), does not really reject evolution. In fact, a Hindu might say creation is a fallacy, since there is no beginning and no end. There will simply be cycles of civilizations - humanity will go through a day of high civilization, and then a night of no civilization, and then another day will come.
Though I will not get into a fight over whether evolution is right or wrong (personnally, I have yet to see any evidence that evolution could possibly be wrong), I can comment on evolution's religious overtones, and say that the Vedanta is not compromised at all by any findings of evolution.
Very interesting to know Astrofan… thanks!
[quote]
Originally posted by Shakir75:
This is in reply to Mr dhir. You are right when you say that there ae many creature that have come into being and others that have gone extinct. Also the 'survival of the fittest' theory hold true. However, this does not prove Darwin's theory of evolution at all. You'll find that many 'fittest' species in the past have gone extinct, instead of evolving or mutating into something that will be able to cope better with their surroundings. The fact that new creatures come into being only proves that species form and them fade away. Doesn't prove Darwin's theory.
[/quote]
Astrofan:
You say that humans and apes have common ancestors, according to Darwin. To me he still means humans came from apes- linear or non linear. You say you have yet to find evidence to disprove the theory of evolution. As for me, I still have not found evidence to prove it.
Peace.
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
[This message has been edited by Shakir75 (edited September 21, 2000).]
However, this does not prove Darwin's theory of evolution at all. You'll find that many 'fittest' species in the past have gone extinct, instead of evolving or mutating into something that will be able to cope better with their surroundings.
Now that you know that many fittest species have gone extinct, you must be knowing the reasons for that also. The culprit either is a natural calamity of gigantic proportion or other outside influences which destablilise natural process. It is never that they are fit and still disappeared naturally.
The fact that new creatures come into being only proves that species form and them fade away. Doesn't prove Darwin's theory.
On the contrary, it proves. The older form of a species tend to take a new form in a few million years, if allowed to develop by outside forces/influences. Otherwise, the fittest genes/bacterias that survive those calamities, regroup again and form a new species which can adapt more conveniently to the new surroundings.