Absolute Truth Network

Introduction

This year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, and Nov. 24 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, the landmark work in which Darwin laid forth his theory of natural selection. Althought this theory is being seriously challenged in all academic circles. Its widespread popularity created by legitimizing through the modern educational system has wreck havoc on the society. Here we try to understand its consequences on a social level.

Darwin indirectly legitimized violence by claiming that humans are, in essence, animals struggling for life. Most people think the theory of evolution was first proposed by Charles Darwin, and rests on scientific evidence, observations and experiments. However, in the same way that Darwin was not its originator neither does the theory rest on scientific proof. The theory consists of an adaptation to nature of an ancient dogma called materialist philosophy. Although it is backed up by no scientific evidence, the theory is blindly supported in the name of materialist philosophy.

This fanaticism has resulted in many disasters. That is because together with the spread of Darwinism and the materialist philosophy it supports, the answer to the question ‘What is a human being?’ has changed. People who used to answer: ‘Human beings were created by God and have to live according to the morality He teaches’ have now begun to think that ‘Man came into being by chance, and is an animal who developed with the fight for survival. ‘ There is a heavy price to pay for this great deception. Violent ideologies such as racism, fascism and communism, and many other cruel world views based on conflict have all drawn strength from this deception.

This article will examine this disaster Darwinism has brought to the world and reveal its connection with terrorism, one of the most important global problems of our time.

The Darwinist Misconception: ‘Life is conflict’

Darwin set out with one basic premise when developing his theory: ‘The development of living things depends on the fight for survival. The strong win the struggle. The weak are condemned to defeat and oblivion. ‘

According to Darwin, there was a ruthless struggle for survival and eternal conflict in nature. The strong always overcome the weak, and this enables development to take place. The subtitle he gave to his book The Origin of Species, “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”, encapsulates that view.

Furthermore, Darwin proposed that the ‘fight for survival’ also applied between human races. According to that claim, ‘favored races’ were victorious in the struggle. Favored races, in Darwin’s view, were white Europeans. African or Asian races had lagged behind in the struggle for survival. Darwin went further, and suggested that these races would soon lose the ’struggle for survival’ entirely, and thus disappear:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

The Indian anthropologist Lalita Vidyarthi explains how Darwin’s theory of evolution imposed racism on the social sciences:

His (Darwin’s) theory of the survival of the fittest was warmly welcomed by the social scientists of the day, and they believed mankind had achieved various levels of evolution culminating in the white man’s civilization. By the second half of the nineteenth century racism was accepted as fact by the vast majority of Western scientists.

As Darwinism dominated European culture, the effects of the ’struggle for survival’ began to emerge. Colonialist European nations in particular began to portray the nations they colonized as ‘evolutionary backward nations’ and looked to Darwinism for justification.

Darwin’s Source of Inspiration: Malthus’s Theory of Ruthlessness

Darwin was influenced by the social theories of Malthus, who defined ruthlessness as a law of nature.
Darwin’s source of inspiration on this subject was the British economist Thomas Malthus’s book An Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus calculated that the human population increased rapidly when people were left to reproduce as they liked. In his view, the main influences that kept populations under control were disasters such as war, famine and disease. In short, according to this brutal claim, some people had to die for others to live. Existence came to mean ‘permanent war. ‘

In the 19th century, Malthus’s ideas were widely accepted. European upper class intellectuals in particular supported his cruel ideas. In an article titled ‘The Nazis’ Secret Scientific Agenda’, the importance that 19th-century Europe attached to Malthus’s views on population is described in this way:

In the opening half of the nineteenth century, throughout Europe, members of the ruling classes gathered to discuss the newly discovered “Population problem” and to devise ways of implementing the Malthusian mandate, to increase the mortality rate of the poor: “Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations,” and so forth and so on.

As a result of this cruel policy, the weak, and those who lost the struggle for survival would be eliminated, and as a result the rapid rise in population would be balanced out. This so-called ‘oppression of the poor’ policy was actually carried out in 19th century Britain. An industrial order was set up in which children of eight and nine were made to work sixteen hours a day in the coal mines and thousands died from the terrible conditions. The ’struggle for survival’ demanded by Malthus’s theory led to millions of Britons leading lives full of suffering.

Influenced by these ideas, Darwin applied this concept of conflict to all of nature, and proposed that the strong and the fittest emerged victorious from this war of existence. Moreover, he claimed that the so-called struggle for survival was a justified an unchangeable law of nature. On the other hand, he invited people to abandon their religious beliefs by denying creation, and thus aimed at all ethical values that could prove an obstacle to the ruthlessness of the ’struggle for survival. ‘

The dissemination of these untrue ideas that led individuals to ruthlessness and cruelty, cost humanity a heavy price in the 20th century.

The Role of Darwinism in Preparing the Ground for World War I

The outbreak of World War I in 1914 was a political effect of Darwinism.

In his book Europe Since 1870, the well-known British professor of history James Joll explains that one of the factors that prepared the ground for World War I was the belief in Darwinism of European rulers at the time. For instance, the Austro-Hungarian chief of staff, Franz Baron Conrad von Hoetzendorff, wrote in his post-war memoirs:

Philanthropic religions, moral teachings and philosophical doctrines may certainly sometimes serve to weaken mankind’s struggle for existence in its crudest form, but they will never succeed in removing it as a driving motive of the world. It is in accordance with this great principle that the catastrophe of the world war came about as the result of the motive forces in the lives of states and peoples, like a thunderstorm which must by its nature discharge itself.

The leaders of Europe on the eve of World War I were mislead by the Social Darwinist dogma. They thought that war was a biological necessity.

It is not hard to understand why Conrad, with that ideological foundation, should have encouraged the Austro-Hungarian Empire to declare war. Such ideas at the time were not limited to the military. Kurt Riezler, the personal assistant and confidant of the German chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, wrote in 1914: ‘Eternal and absolute enmity is fundamentally inherent in relations between peoples; and the hostility which we observe everywhere is not the result of a perversion of human nature but is the essence of the world and the source of life itself. ‘
Friedrich von Bernardi, a World War I general, made a similar connection between war and the laws of war in nature. “War” declared Bernhardi “is a biological necessity”; it “is as necessary as the struggle of the elements of nature”; it “gives a biologically just decision, since its decisions rest on the very nature of things. ”

As we have seen, World War I broke out because of European thinkers, generals and administrators who saw warfare, bloodshed and suffering as a kind of ‘development’, and thought they were an unchanging ‘law of nature. ‘ The ideological root that dragged all of that generation to destruction was nothing else than Darwin’s concepts of the ’struggle for survival’ and ‘favored races’.

World War I left behind it 8 million dead, hundreds of ruined cities, and millions of wounded, crippled, homeless and unemployed.

The basic cause of World War II, which broke out 21 years later and left 55 million dead behind it, was also derived from Darwinism.

The Fruit of ‘The Law of the Jungle’: Fascism

As Darwinism fed racism in the 19th century, it formed the basis of an ideology that would develop and drown the world in blood in the middle 20th century: Nazism. Both the race theory and the war hysteria of the Nazis were inspired from Darwinism.

A strong Darwinist influence can be seen in Nazi ideologues. When one examines this theory, which was given shape by Adolf Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg, one comes across such concepts as ‘natural selection’, ’selected mating’, and ‘the struggle for survival between the races’, which are repeated dozens of time in The Origin of Species. When calling his book Mein Kampf (”My Struggle”), Hitler was inspired by the Darwinist struggle for survival and the principle that victory went to the fittest. He particularly talks about the struggle between the races:

History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendor, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself.

In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that “a higher race subjects to itself a lower race a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right. ”

That the Nazis were influenced by Darwinism is a fact that many historians accept. The historian Hickman describes Darwinism’s influence on Hitler as follows:

(Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.

Hitler, who emerged with these views, dragged the world to violence that had never before been seen. Many ethnic and political groups, and especially the Jews, were exposed to terrible cruelty and slaughter in the Nazi concentration camps. World War II, which began with the Nazi invasion, cost 55 million lives. What lay behind the greatest tragedy in world history was Darwinism’s concept of the ’struggle for survival’.

The Bloody Alliance: Darwinism and Communism

The dialectical materialism of Marx defined violence as a constructive force that helped human progress.
While fascists are found on the right wing of Social Darwinism, the left wing is occupied by communists. Communists have always been among the fiercest defenders of Darwin’s theory.

This relationship between Darwinism and communism goes right back to the founders of both these ‘isms. ‘ Marx and Engels, the founders of communism, read Darwin’s The Origin of Species as soon as it came out, and were amazed at is ‘dialectical materialist’ attitude. The correspondence between Marx and Engels showed that they saw Darwin’s theory as ‘containing the basis in natural history for communism’. In his book The Dialectics of Nature, which he wrote under the influence of Darwin, Engels was full of praise for Darwin, and tried to make his own contribution to the theory in the chapter ‘The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man. ‘

Russian communists who followed in the footsteps of Marx and Engels, such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, all agreed with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Plekhanov, who is considered as the founder of Russian communism, regarded marxism as ‘Darwinism in its application to social science’.

Trotsky said, ‘Darwin’s discovery is the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter. ‘

‘Darwinist education’ had a major role in the formation of communist cadres. For instance, historians note the fact that Stalin was religious in his youth, but became an atheist because of Darwin’s books.

Mao, who established communist rule in China and killed millions of people, openly stated that ‘Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution. ‘

The Harvard University historian James Reeve Pusey goes into great detail regarding Darwinism’s effect on Mao and Chinese communism in his research book China and Charles Darwin.

In short, there is an unbreakable link between the theory of evolution and communism. The theory claims that living things are the product of blind chance, and provides a so-called scientific support for atheism. Communism, an atheist ideology, is for that reason firmly tied to Darwinism. Moreover, the theory of evolution proposes that development in nature is possible thanks to conflict (in other words ‘the struggle for survival’) and supports the concept of ‘dialectics’ which is fundamental to communism.

If we think of the communist concept of ‘dialectical conflict’, which killed some 120 million people throughout the 20th century, as a ‘killing machine’ then we can better understand the dimension of the disaster that Darwinism visited on our planet.

Darwinism and Terrorism

As we have so far seen, Darwinism is at the root of various ideologies of violence that spelled disaster to mankind in the 20th century. However, as well as these ideologies, Darwinism also defines an ‘ethical understanding’ and ‘method’ that could influence various world views. The fundamental concept behind this understanding and method is ‘fighting those who are not one of us’.

We can explain this in the following way: There are different beliefs, worldviews and philosophies in the world. These can look at each other in one of two ways:

1. They can respect the existence of those who are not one of them and try to establish dialogue with them, employing a humane method.

1. They can choose to fight others, and to try to secure an advantage by damaging them, in other words, behave like a wild animal.

The horror we call terrorism is nothing other than a statement of the second view. The faith in the legitimacy of terror comes from materialist ideologies, not Theistic faiths.

When we consider the difference between these two approaches, we can see that the idea of “man as a fighting animal” which Darwinism has subconsciously imposed on people is particularly influential. Individuals and groups who choose the way of conflict may never have heard of Darwinism and the principles of that ideology. But in the final analysis, they agree with a view whose philosophical basis rests on Darwinism. What leads them to believe in the rightness of violence is such Darwinism-based slogans as:

In this world, only the strong survive.
Big fish swallow the little ones,
War is a virtue,
Man advances by waging war.

Take Darwinism away, and these are nothing but empty slogans.

Actually, when Darwinism is taken away, no philosophy of ‘conflict’ remains. The three monotheistic religions that most people in the world believe in, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, all oppose violence. All three religions wish to bring peace and harmony to the world, and oppose innocent people being killed and suffering cruelty and torture. Conflict and violence violate the morality that God has set out for man, and are abnormal and undesired concepts. However, Darwinism sees and portrays conflict and violence as natural, justified and correct concepts that have to exist.

For this reason, if some people commit terrorism using the concepts and symbols of Islam, Christianity and Judaism in the name of those religions, you can be sure that those people are not Muslims, Christians or Jews. They are in fact Social Darwinists. They hide under a cloak of religion, but they are not genuine believers. Even if they claim to be serving religion, they are actually enemies of religion and believers. That is because they are ruthlessly committing a crime that religion forbids, and in such a way as to blacken religion in peoples’ eyes.

For this reason, the root of the terrorism that plagues our world is not in any of the monotheistic religions, but is in atheism, and the expression of atheism in our times: ‘Darwinism’ and ‘materialism’.

Above article was authored by Suhotra Swami.

Modern Fallout of the theory

Recent School killings and Darwin

Pekka-Eric Auvinen, a Finnish schoolboy who murdered eight people at his high school in November 2007, wrote on his blog that “stupid, weak-minded people are reproducing … faster than the intelligent, strong-minded” ones. Auvinen thought through the philosophical implications of Darwin’s work and came to the conclusion that human life is like every other type of animal life: it has no extraordinary value. The Columbine killers made similar arguments. One of the shooters, Eric Harris, wore a “Natural Selection” shirt on the day of the massacre. These are examples of how easily Darwin’s writings can lead to very disturbed ways of thinking.

Abortion and Darwin’s theory

As humans are just another species and killings are just a a natural phenomenon of Natural Selection. Killing a child in the womb is not a sin anymore, if it helps you adapt to the environment.

Vedic Observer

In modern times Charles Darwin is regarded as the scientist who formulated a theory of evolution by natural selection, but the concept of evolution was known long before Darwin. Srila Prabhupada as modern exponent of Vedic culture writes, “Although Westerners accept that Darwin first expounded the doctrine of evolution, the science of anthropology is not new. The development of the evolutionary process was known long before from the Bhagavatam, which was written five thousand years ago.” Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.29.29, Purport.

He continues “Although Vedas does conceptually accept evolution—but there’s a catch. According to the Srimad-Bhagavatam, one species does not evolve into another, but rather the soul evolves in consciousness as it transmigrates from lower to higher forms of existence in the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. In the material realm the soul begins its journey in a human body. Material desires and subsequent actions result in the soul’s being born in a species that fits its mentality. If the soul falls to a lower species, it then takes successive births in species with higher and higher states of consciousness. This is the process of transmigration. As Srila Prabhupada said, “Darwin’s theory of evolution is but a partial explanation of the transmigration of the soul. Darwin has … no conception of the soul.”

References

• Darwin’s dark Legacy In modern context from Times magazine.
• Darwin’s deadly legacy TV documentary.

Edited by LNDAS

Share

Save

Introduction

Two fossils found in Kenya have shaken the human family tree, possiblyrearranging major branches thought to be in a straight ancestral line toHomo sapiens.
National Museums of Kenya/F. SpoorScientists who dated and analyzed the specimens — a 1.44 million-year-oldHomo habilis and a 1.55 million-year-old Homo erectus — said their findingschallenged the conventional view that these species evolved one after theother. Instead, they apparently lived side by side in eastern Africa foralmost half a million years.
If this interpretation is correct, the early evolution of the genus Homo isleft even more shrouded in mystery than before. It means that both habilisand erectus must have originated from a common ancestor between two millionand three million years ago, a time when fossil hunters had drawn a virtualblank.
Although the findings do not change the relationship of Homo erectus as adirect ancestor of Homo sapiens, scientists said, the surprisinglydiminutive erectus skull implies that this species was not as humanlike asonce thought.
Other paleontologists and experts in human evolution said the discoverystrongly suggested that the early transition from more apelike to morehumanlike ancestors was still poorly understood. They also said that thisemphasized the need to search more widely for fossils from the criticalperiod at the still unknown dawn of our own genus, Homo.
The challenge to the idea of a more linear succession of the three Homospecies is being reported today in the journal Nature. The lead author isFred Spoor, an evolutionary anatomist at University College London. Otherauthors include Meave G. Leakey and her daughter Louise Leakey, the Kenyanpaleontologists who are co-directors of the Koobi Fora Research Project thatmade the discovery. The fieldwork was supported by the National GeographicSociety.
The fossils were found east of Lake Turkana in Kenya in 2000. It took yearsto prepare the specimens, encased in hardened sediment, for study and to besure of the identification of the species, the scientists said. Universityof Utah geologists determined the dates of the fossils from volcanic ashdeposits.
The most recent fossils of the habilis species known before now were 1.65million years old or older. Some fragments of fossils with apparent habilisattributes have been dated as early as 2.33 million years old.
In recent years, scientists not involved in the project said, discoverieswere hinting at possible overlap between the habilis and erectus species.But the implications were considered so profound that little was said aboutthese dates, pending more conclusive evidence.
“The oldest Homo habilis we had known of was about the same age as erectus,”said Daniel Lieberman, a professor of biological anthropology at HarvardUniversity. “Now we have extended the duration of the habilis species, andthere’s no doubt that it overlaps considerably with erectus.”
In their report, Dr. Spoor and his colleagues wrote, “With the discovery ofthe new, well dated specimens, H. habilis and H. erectus can now be shown tohave co-occurred in eastern Africa for nearly half a million years.”
The fact that the two hominid species lived together in the same lake basinfor so long and remained separate species, Dr. Meave Leakey said in astatement from Nairobi, “suggests that they had their own ecological niche,thus avoiding direct competition.” For example, the two may have hadforaging and dietary differences.
In any case, Dr. Leakey said, “Their co-existence makes it unlikely thatHomo erectus evolved from Homo habilis.”
Dr. Spoor, speaking by satellite phone from a field site near Lake Turkana,said the evidence clearly contradicted previous ideas of human evolution “asone strong, single line from early to us.” The new findings, he added,support the revised interpretations of “a lot of bushiness andexperimentation in the fossil record,” rather than a more linear successionof species.
But Dr. Spoor said the second fossil, the 1.55 million-year-old erectusskull, was probably the more surprising discovery. The bones are unusuallywell preserved.
“What is truly striking about this fossil is its size,” he said. “It is thesmallest Homo erectus found thus far anywhere in the world.”
The scientists reported that the individual was a young adult or “a latesubadult.” Its size was closer to that of a habilis than previously knownerectus fossils. But the distinctive ridge on the cranium, the jaw and teethand the shape of the neck are all characteristic of erectus rather thanhabilis or other human ancestors.
From the skull’s small size, the scientists concluded that Homo erectus was,in one important respect, less humanlike than had been previously assumed.Other erectus skull and skeletal fossils had seemed to show erectus to bethe first human ancestor that was like us in so many ways, except for asmaller brain.
Susan Anton, an anthropologist at New York University and one of thereport’s authors, said that the small skull pointed up a significantvariation in the sizes of erectus specimens, particularly differencesbetween the male and female of the species, or sexual dimorphism.
Such a characteristic is thought to be a primitive stage in evolution. Inhumans, males average about 15 percent larger than females, and the same istrue for chimpanzees. Sexual dimorphism is much more striking in gorillas,and apparently also in erectus.
“The new Kenyan fossil suggests that contrary to common belief, this mayhave been true of Homo erectus,” Dr. Anton said, implying that erectus wasnot as humanlike as once thought.
Dr. Lieberman of Harvard said, “The small skull has got to be a female, andmy guess is that all the previous erectus we have found turned out to bemale.”
The new findings, Dr. Lieberman said, highlight the need for obtaining morefossils that are more than two million years old. In addition, he said, theyshow “just how interesting and complex the human genus was and how poorly weunderstand the transition from being something much more apelike tosomething more humanlike.”
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD Published in NYTIMES August 9, 2007

Vedic Observer

Over the past two centuries researchers have found bones and artifacts showing that people like ourselves existed on earth millions of years ago. But the scientific establishment has ignored these remarkable facts because they contradict the dominant views of human origins and antiquity. Micheal Cremo and Richard Thompson challenge us to rethink our understanding of human origins, identity, and destiny in their new book Forbidden Archeology. Forbidden Archeology takes on one of the most fundamental components of the modern scientific world view, and invites us to take a courageous first step towards a new perspective.

Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race presents a representative sample of this anomalous evidence suggesting that humans have been on the earth for millions of years, ,just as the ancient Sanskrit writings of the Vedic literatures describe. The Vedic histories inform us that humans have existed since the beginning of the day of Brahma, about 2 billion years ago.

Cremo and Thompson conclude that even the conventionally accepted evidence does not offer a cohesive picture of the missing link; instead, the multiplicity of proposed evolutionary linkages among the hominids in Africa creates a very confusing scheme of human evolution. They call for a drastic revision of the now-dominant assumptions about human origins.

References

1. Forbidden Archeology

Share

Save

Question: According to theory of evolution by Darwin living entity adapts itself to the environment in which it lives. (eg zebra turning into giraffe by elongating its neck). Logically its perfectly right.

Response: Darwin’s theory says for scarcity of food on the ground, the giraffes had to extend their necks to get food from tree tops. But deer, antelopes and other herbivores were eating from ground anyways. So is it logically perfectly right to say that zebra had to become a giraffe?

Question: In nature we see so many examples. Someone living in cold countries develops white body while someone living in hot climates develops black body. People of different countries have different bodily features due to climatic conditions.

Comment: The hinge of these arguments is that adaptation results from chance. Let’s see how valid is this explanation. Skin color comes from special cellular organelles called melanosomes. The difference in skin color of different races comes because of differential pigment synthesis. The synthesis begins from tyrosine -> DOPA -> dopaquinone. At this point the pathway branches and dopaquinone either reacts with cysteine to produce pheomelanin or it is converted to leucodopachrome to produce eumelanin (there are some intermediate steps before the specific melanin is produced). So the point is the change in body color cannot just come because of temperature. This is not to say that change in temperature does not affect the body color but is not sufficient enough to cause generation of totally different race/ethnicity. Furthermore, its not only the skin color that is different between the races but also bodily features (as you have correctly pointed out) and each characteristic that we mention may it be skin color or something
else has to result from some elegant biochemistry. And if you study these different biochemical processes (a couple I have mentioned above on melanin biogenesis) are irreducibly complex and tightly controlled by precise biochemical and biophysical parameters. What is the probability that these will just result from a chance?

Question: Appendix (part of body) was used by primitive people to digest hard foodstuffs. But now as it is not used it is led invaluable and can be removed without any loss.

Comment: Whatever science says has to be accepted with a grain of salt as it is dependant on information gathered from our imperfect senses and hence is far from perfect. This case of appendix is an excellent example. The supposed “uselessness” of appendix is one of the controversial subject matters in human physiology. There are some schools that hypothesize that appendix has lymphatic, endocrine, exocrine and neuromuscular functions and there are others who disagree with this view. Thus we cannot use appendix as a case to defend evolution. Let us await what science has to say about appendix in future; it should no come as a surprise to us that scientists are able to ascribe some function to appendix as they did it with the pineal gland that once considered as a “vestigial remnant of evolution”.

I beg to correct you on the primitive function of appendix that you have mentioned: the human appendix is considered as a vestigial organ of larger cellulose-digesting cecum that was used by the herbivore ancestors and not used by primitive people to digest hard foodstuffs.

Question: Mosquitoes develop immunity to mosquito repellent chemicals after some period of time. so this proves living entity adapts itself to environment.

Answer: The body’s adaption capacity (some call this ‘micro-evolution’) is not a contradiction to the Vedic model by any means. Certain changes “within” the species that increase its fitness are certainly observed within a population. Antibiotic resistance is another example. However, what Darwinian evolution talks about is generating a totally new species, which is not acceptable. There have been veritably millions of mutagenesis experiments done on Drosophila but there has been never been a case when a house-fly or some other species developed from a fruit-fly. There has never been a case when a human gave birth to a monkey or vice-versa. Like begets like.

Question: So why not monkeys turn into human beings due to adaptability?

Answer: I again would like to correct you that the Theory of Evolution does not say that monkeys became human beings. As per Theory of Evolution, humans, apes, monkeys and other “look-alikes” descend from a common ancestor.

On a concluding note, the proposed Theory of Evolution is not so simplistic that “something adapts itself”. With the advent of molecular biology, the theory is becoming more complex and is seeking its justification at the DNA and protein level. Changes in allele frequencies, genome duplications, orthology, paralogy and similar other observations are being used to substantiate its credibility. But Evolution is far from being “proved”. Moreover, as devotees we are more concerned with the atheistic foundation and subsequent implications of ToE rather than the theory itself. This was also one of the reasons that Darwin did not publish his findings until very late even though he had compiled them much earlier.

Share

Save