Dharmic Religions Only: Evolutionary Science and Hindu/Buddhist worldviews.

[kalyan]

In that case, the shruti "Mind and word return from it" is to be shelved.

In that case, the whole idea of Ishwara is untenable from tattvavAd perspective. The whole of the knowledge of Turiya non dual atman will fail.

Actually there is more to it. Direct experience of no two individuals will match. There is a pithy statement in Yoga Vasista that in my opinion summarises this. "What is true in consciousness is true since the Consciousness is true."

All schools agree on highest authority of Shruti and in fact schools other than advaita point out presence of Bheda shruti to refute Shankara.

The advaita position will be reduced to absurdity if sensual experiences are used to reject shabda pramana.

Science is my profession. I do my work as a necessity -- as a result of prArabdha. But it is shruti that reminds me again and again "The turiya atman must be known". Now, there is no way for the sensual apparatus or for science to experience Turiya directly.

However, we must all note that the purAna-s are not shabda pramana. They are smriti and not shabda.

Fact or opinion?
Puranas are inline with Vedam and hence supreme authority.. You are getting confused

 

[kalyan]

Evidence of Major Evolutionary Changes:- Through Lab Experiments
While fossils are well and good, direct results form lab experiments, when available, provide a much surer basis on which to justify a theory. Now if any transition counts as a major transition in evolutionary history, it must be the emergence of multicellular organisms from single celled ancestors. This is a major event in the history of life, leading to the emergence of big plants and animals made of millions of cells working together. It is also something that is clearly depicted in the fossil record (which I will come to later). The evolution of multicellularity was thought to be a significant theoretical challenge to evolution because, as one biologist puts it,



However, evolutionary biologists have been able to evolve unicellular yeast into new multicellular yeast in just 60 generations

But clusters of cells do not make a multicellular organism. They have to function in the world as a unit and should react to evolutionary pressures as one unit and not simply as individuals in a loose colony. Further research showed that these snowflake mutant yeasts are indeed acting as one organism and not merely as a colony.


Not only that they were beginning to show functional differentiation between different cells based on location, just like specialized cells on multicellular organisms do in their various organs.


All of this happened in just 2 months of experiments starting with yeast that lived as single lonely cells. Since none of us deny that the earth is billions of years old, the rapid mutability of organisms top create such significant alterations to their behavior and form under the correct kind of selection pressure makes evolution, speciation and diversity nearly inevitable and illogical to argue against.

LINK
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/test-tube-yeast-evolve/

What a load of bs...Finally bacteria evolved into something that is bacteria...Is that evolution?

 

[sayak83]

Give me sources or It did not happen

Is it a fact or opinion?

A small selection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Difference in all fronts including facial anatomy is much greater in between monkeys than between any ape and a human. This is why Asian/African monkeys,apes(including humans) and gibbons form one superfamily while the New World monkeys (of Brazil) form another distinct superfamily. Links
See skull differences here.
https://books.google.com/books?id=WybiCgAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s (page 75 onwards)
See family and order analysis here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simian

The science of cladistics objectively measures all anatomical similarities and differences between skeletons and other features of different species (living and extinct) and creates an objective measure by which one can quantitatively tell how similar or different in anatomy different species are. By such analysis, monkey differ much more among themselves than humans and chimps. This fact is universally acknowledged by all biologists who study primates.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

.

What a load of bs...Finally bacteria evolved into something that is bacteria...Is that evolution?

From what I see, the only bs on this thread are your posts. And you are pretty consistent about it.

Fact or opinion?

Given the quality of your posts, I would say you wouldn't be able to grasp the difference, even if it were to be spelt out to you.

 

[sayak83]

What a load of bs...Finally bacteria evolved into something that is bacteria...Is that evolution?

Your complete ignorance is noted. Yeast is not bacteria (completely different order, its worse than calling a tree a deer..a tree is much much much much closely related to a deer than yeast to bacteria). Yeast is eukaryotic organism and its cell is nearly identical in most respect to cells found in animals including us. Its a type of fungus (think mushroom). The transition from a unicellular yeast to a multicellular yeast similar to what has naturally occurred in the past for many fungii (like mushrooms) is as direct demonstration of the capability of evolution to create multicellular creatures as one could have, ever.

 

[kalyan]

Your complete ignorance is noted. Yeast is not bacteria (completely different order, its worse than calling a tree a deer..a tree is much much much much closely related to a deer than yeast to bacteria). Yeast is eukaryotic organism and its cell is nearly identical in most respect to cells found in animals including us. Its a type of fungus (think mushroom). The transition from a unicellular yeast to a multicellular yeast similar to what has naturally occurred in the past for many fungii (like mushrooms) is as direct demonstration of the capability of evolution to create multicellular creatures as one could have, ever.

Again, you are shooting yourself in your foot....Yeast evolved into something that is YEAST

 

[kalyan]

.


From what I see, the only bs on this thread are your posts. And you are pretty consistent about it.



Given the quality of your posts, I would say you wouldn't be able to grasp the difference, even if it were to be spelt out to you.

You sir, I have never seen you post a shred of evidence in any of your posts till now, atleast OP is trying...When I ask for proof, you simply back away... Now who is consistent? ..

 

[sayak83]

Again, you are shooting yourself in your foot....Yeast evolved into something that is YEAST

And humans are also apes. Evolution of chimpanzees to humans is the evolution of apes to apes.
You will give me typical christian creationist lines. Really? Disappointing.
The names are given by biologists for convenience to group thousands of distinct species together. Same for every other thing in nature. Jupiter and earth are both planets, so there is no significant difference between a gigantic gas giant and a small rocky sphere. Oh wait!

 

[buddhist]

This thread is dedicated to exploring the significance of the science of evolution from the perspective of Hindu/Buddhist worldviews. On several occasions within Hinduism DIR, the topic of evolution came up and several members expressed strong reservations about it. So I thought that I would create a dedicated same faith debate thread that looks at the reason why some who believe in the dharmic religions either do not believe that the evolutionary theory is true or that it is in opposition to their religious beliefs. If you hold either of these positions, I encourage you to converse with me so that I get a better sense on why you disbelieve in the science of evolution as it is presently understood by most biologists....

If anything, early Buddhism teaches the potential for both evolution, and devolution - not directly as a result of genetic selection, but through personal volitional choice.

That is, if one chooses skillful behavior, one can expect to personally evolve; if one chooses unskillful behavior, then to devolve.

As a whole, if people in society choose to engage in more often in skillful behaviors than not, then kamma will propel them to rebirth among parents with relatively better genetic qualities or even in the heavenly realms. From a wider, scientific perspective, it could be considered a form of genetic evolution.

However, the opposite can also happen: if people in society choose unskillful behaviors, then genetic devolution will be apparent - rebirth among parents with lesser genetic qualities or even in lower realms. It is recorded in the early Buddhist scriptures (e.g. DN 27) that progressively unskillful behaviors were undertaken over time by humans as a whole, causing us to lose our self-luminosity and our ability to travel through the air, among other traits.

 

[निताइ dasa]

A small selection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Difference in all fronts including facial anatomy is much greater in between monkeys than between any ape and a human. This is why Asian/African monkeys,apes(including humans) and gibbons form one superfamily while the New World monkeys (of Brazil) form another distinct superfamily. Links
See skull differences here.
https://books.google.com/books?id=WybiCgAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s (page 75 onwards)
See family and order analysis here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simian

The science of cladistics objectively measures all anatomical similarities and differences between skeletons and other features of different species (living and extinct) and creates an objective measure by which one can quantitatively tell how similar or different in anatomy different species are. By such analysis, monkey differ much more among themselves than humans and chimps. This fact is universally acknowledged by all biologists who study primates.

Comparative anatomy also supports Puranic devolution. If there a similar features between species (ie common genes) it does not imply common divergence. If those genes were logically present within the species in the beginning it would make be logically consistent and explanation would we similar species have similar functions and structures and hence common genes

I am trying to argue again evolution here but I believe that the current evidence that is present from evolution can also support Vedic devolution. The basis of this claim is not modern science but sabda Pramana and this is the view of the Vaishnav schools

As for @kalyan ji I would give up there is no point arguing with people who have made up their minds. They do no understand the faith we have in scripture and our purva Acharyas. Let us leave them with their beliefs and we shall peacefully do Bhakti with ours. The end point is that some schools of Hinduism reject Hinduism because Shastra contradicts it. I believe I have explained this enough. This is a very controversial topic and I don't really wanna debate this until the sun sets.
NITAIBOL!

 

[sayak83]

If anything, early Buddhism teaches the potential for both evolution, and devolution - not directly as a result of genetic selection, but through personal volitional choice.

That is, if one chooses skillful behavior, one can expect to personally evolve; if one chooses unskillful behavior, then to devolve.

As a whole, if people in society choose to engage in more often in skillful behaviors than not, then kamma will propel them to rebirth among parents with relatively better genetic qualities or even in the heavenly realms. From a wider, scientific perspective, it could be considered a form of genetic evolution.

However, the opposite can also happen: if people in society choose unskillful behaviors, then genetic devolution will be apparent - rebirth among parents with lesser genetic qualities or even in lower realms. It is recorded in the early Buddhist scriptures (e.g. DN 27) that progressively unskillful behaviors were undertaken over time by humans as a whole, causing us to lose our self-luminosity and our ability to travel through the air, among other traits.

From a biological point of view this is true for features of organisms as well. If generation after generation of living organisms stop using the abilities of particular organ, then that organ loses its functional capacity. An example is a human's ability to smell. We have a far lesser sensitivity to different odors than monkeys and other mammals. This is because monkeys and other primates rely on their sense of smell to find fruits and flowers to eat in dense forests a lot more than our ancestors did. Instead we relied on our vision in a more open wooded environment. So the selective pressure to keep our strong sense of smell intact was lost, the genes gathered damaging mutations and our nose lost its keeness. On the other hand the selective pressure to see more intensified, enabling the creation of genes that make our eyes sharper and see more types of color. Thus humans (and apes) have sharper vision and a duller sense of smell. And we can see this effect in our genes. In our DNA, we can see the broken damaged copies of the same genes that are being actively used in monkeys and other primates to drive their strong sense of smell. So evolution also follows the mantra "Use it or lose it". Of course with gene therapy, there is now the real possibility that you could "repair" these genes in human babies before birth so that they could truly know what it is like to have a sense of smell like a dog.

 

[sayak83]

Comparative anatomy also supports Puranic devolution. If there a similar features between species (ie common genes) it does not imply common divergence. If those genes were logically present within the species in the beginning it would make be logically consistent and explanation would we similar species have similar functions and structures and hence common genes

I am trying to argue again evolution here but I believe that the current evidence that is present from evolution can also support Vedic devolution. The basis of this claim is not modern science but sabda Pramana and this is the view of the Vaishnav schools

As for @kalyan ji I would give up there is no point arguing with people who have made up their minds. They do no understand the faith we have in scripture and our purva Acharyas. Let us leave them with their beliefs and we shall peacefully do Bhakti with ours. The end point is that some schools of Hinduism reject Hinduism because Shastra contradicts it. I believe I have explained this enough. This is a very controversial topic and I don't really wanna debate this until the sun sets.
NITAIBOL!

Fair enough if you do not want to discuss this topic. I will simply emphasize the fact that the rejection of evolution is something peculiar to your branch of Hinduism. Other branches has no problems with it, and you are mistaken in believing that evolutionary theory is not a very well established evidence based scientific theory.
The relations between how similar looking genes act in the bodies of various organs, how muscles and other organs are constructed by slight step by step alterations on common themes to produce what looks like drastically different organs, and how fossils so beautifully track those step by step changes in the evolutionary design , makes the case for evolution extremely strong. Did you know that the gill bones of early fish transformed into the lower jaw, ear and voice box bones of all land animals including us. Did you know that the last gill bone of older flipper-less hag fish became the fins of modern fish and the arms and legs of all land animals. Did you know that we can track these transformations through fossils and also through genes while looking at embroyo growth in lab? The relationship between embroyology, developmental biology, medicine, paleontology and evolutionary biology is extremely well illustrated in the talk below that looks at how flippers became legs and gills became bones in our jaws, throat and ear.

 

[kalyan]

And humans are also apes. Evolution of chimpanzees to humans is the evolution of apes to apes.
You will give me typical christian creationist lines. Really? Disappointing.
The names are given by biologists for convenience to group thousands of distinct species together. Same for every other thing in nature. Jupiter and earth are both planets, so there is no significant difference between a gigantic gas giant and a small rocky sphere. Oh wait!

You started with 'humans are apes', so I could as well as address you as a chimpanzee or tarzan and you should not be offended and with the amount of smileys that have been used, I could only confer that you are kidding around...

You have NOT posted a single proof proving evolution, the best you could find is yeast evolving into yeast...I mean really ?
The quoted post of yours is just an opinion of yours and not a FACT!

 

[atanu]

Fact or opinion?
Puranas are inline with Vedam and hence supreme authority.. You are getting confused

Not at all. Shruti and smriti are two different categories. Shruti scriptures are heard unlike the Smriti scriptures which are remembered.

 

[kalyan]

Not at all. Shruti and smriti are two different categories. Shruti scriptures are heard unlike the Smriti scriptures which are remembered.

I was just pointing out the fact that smriti is a valid authority in line with vedam because it does not cross a word of vedam, so it can be treated on par with vedam and one can easily quote from it to prove a point...One have no expertise to go into vast forest of vedam, that is where the ithihasas, puranas, agamas, divya prabandhas help in understanding the tattvam

 

[sayak83]

You started with 'humans are apes', so I could as well as address you as a chimpanzee or tarzan and you should not be offended and with the amount of smileys that have been used, I could only confer that you are kidding around...

You have NOT posted a single proof proving evolution, the best you could find is yeast evolving into yeast...I mean really ?
The quoted post of yours is just an opinion of yours and not a FACT!

I will not be offended if you call me an ape or a monkey. I consider myself and every human being as a form of ape.
It is quite clear that you do not understand what evolution is. The transformation of unicellular to multicellular organism is one of the greatest transitions in evolution, and now labs can do it in real time. Evolution will be falsified if the kind of large genetic differences seen between far seperate branches of life are observed to happen in a few generations. Which part of the definition of evolution that I explicitly wrote down in my opening post did you not understand. Millions and millions of genetic mutations, additions and deletions seperate a banana tree from a mice. And did I not write that the rate of mutations per generation is about 200? So it is expected to take millions of years to have organisms as different as mice and banana tree from a common ancestor. This record is preserved in the fossils, whose examples I provided you in my links. What labs can do is to recreate the forks in evolution, when the descendants of an ancestor takes the first step in divergence, in this case between unicellular descendants and multi-cellular descendants in fungi. We have our unicellular animal cousins as well. They are called amoeba.
So I have provided you with
1) Evidence of transitional fossils
2) Evidence that evolution can produce beneficial mutations
3) That can recreate crucial innovations like multicellularity under proper selection conditions

That's a lot of evidence. I have more.
You have provided me with no refutation or any alternative theory whatsoever.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I see no need to reconcile Buddhism with evolution as they in no way conflict. I see the diversification of physical forms over time as reflecting the increasingly complex desires that organisms will generate after repeated sense stimulation over a long period.

What about traditional Buddhist cosmology? Is that compatible with evolution?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

 

[kalyan]

I will not be offended if you call me an ape or a monkey. I consider myself and every human being as a form of ape.
It is quite clear that you do not understand what evolution is. The transformation of unicellular to multicellular organism is one of the greatest transitions in evolution, and now labs can do it in real time. Evolution will be falsified if the kind of large genetic differences seen between far seperate branches of life are observed to happen in a few generations. Which part of the definition of evolution that I explicitly wrote down in my opening post did you not understand. Millions and millions of genetic mutations, additions and deletions seperate a banana tree from a mice. And did I not write that the rate of mutations per generation is about 200? So it is expected to take millions of years to have organisms as different as mice and banana tree from a common ancestor. This record is preserved in the fossils, whose examples I provided you in my links. What labs can do is to recreate the forks in evolution, when the descendants of an ancestor takes the first step in divergence, in this case between unicellular descendants and multi-cellular descendants in fungi. We have our unicellular animal cousins as well. They are called amoeba.
So I have provided you with
1) Evidence of transitional fossils
2) Evidence that evolution can produce beneficial mutations
3) That can recreate crucial innovations like multicellularity under proper selection conditions

That's a lot of evidence. I have more.
You have provided me with no refutation or any alternative theory whatsoever.

so Mr.Tarzan(pun intended) tell me one thing, do you consider yeast transforming into another yeast as evolution ?
2nd, do you see any kind of evolution ala small ape to human BIG occurred anywhere? like Fish transforming into some kind of bird or something ?
3rd I heard that cloning when gone wrong produces all kinds of weird species, what is your opinion on this ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I would specifically address .. and the lightest becomes mind." ..(Chandayoga 6.5:1)

Very nice. I am reding your long posts now. I will suggest one thing. Give a line break (one line space between the paragraphs). The chemistry that you are mentioning here is the chemistry of the GM (Genetically modified) crops. Take a sequence from a mosquito, put it in cotton, and the cotton crop becomes immune to bollworm. I do not know if all our scripture thumping theists will understand it, some will understand but still would not agree to it.

Of the total number of fossils found, a significant % of them ARE transitional, ..

All fossils are transitional, because evolution itself is transition. Even at this moment, we are in transition. Tomorrows humans will be different from today's humans in some way or the other.

What a load of bs...Finally bacteria evolved into something that is bacteria...Is that evolution?

Bacteria evolved into Humans, Kalyan. The Neomura (Archaea and Eukarya) are also our ancestors.

 

[sayak83]

s
so tell me one thing, do you consider yeast transforming into another yeast as evolution ?
2nd, do you see any kind of evolution ala small ape to human BIG occurred anywhere? like Fish transforming into some kind of bird or something ?
3rd I heard that cloning when gone wrong produces all kinds of weird species, what is your opinion on this ?

1) Yes. One species of yeast transforming into another species of yeast is exactly equivalent in every way to one species of mammal (say a horse) transforming into another species of mammal (say deer). The name "yeast" denotes an entire phylum by itself with the fungi kingdom; just as vertebrates (all fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds) are a phylum within the animal kingdom. Would you consider a transformation of a frog to a snake evolution? If so, the case is exactly analogical here.
2) Since humans are apes and evolved from chimpanzee like ancestors, transformation of ape to human (another ape) certainly happened. Such a change within a family is relatively minor and can occur within 4-5 million years comfortably. But vertebrates are a bit more conservative than fungii and dramatic transformations across families (fish to bird) does not happen as animals have more elaborate bodies. What happened (and is well evidenced in fossils) is a transformation of fish to fish with lungs, then to salamander like amphibians, then to lizard like reptiles to reptiles that could run on two legs (dinosaurs), to dinosaurs with feathers for insulation, to dinosaurs with feathers for flying (birds). This process happened over a period of about 250 million years.
3) No. Cloning works quite well. Technology is now well advanced and clones can be made reliably and easily.