Theory of Evolution – part 1

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
so we will finish by 12.45 today and we will again start at around 4 o’clock we will not start at 3 because yesterday it is a little tiring now so 4 o’clock we will start and 4 to 5 we will continue the session and then 5 to 7 we will have the GD presentations for the groups 3 and 4 so how many of you have attended the seminar before KGP all the KGP people have attended is it ok ok so I will be showing one video now and one longer video we will start with it at 4 o’clock so so this is the picture that is depicted to us through our text books this is a scientific fact so let us examine it so now so so when it comes to origins whether it is the theory of evolution or whether it is Big Bang all the theories actually collapse because how everything began that is just something which is beyond the reach of science and that is why Darwin tried to get away by around by saying that the original life was breathed into one or a few creatures by God so Darwin accepted existence of God but subsequent evolution is rejected that also so now before we understand what is evolution these things its origins evolution fails to explain so before we understand evolution and understand how to understand whether it is true or false now we have to understand that the word evolution is used to describe many things and sometimes the proof for one form of evolution is portrayed as proof for all forms of evolution so once we understand the difference between the terms then it will become easier to clarify and classify whether the evolution is actually proved by whatever is being offered as proof so chemical evolution means that the chemicals evolved originally there were simple elements in the life on the earth simple elements were there and they compound together and amino acids formed, proteins formed and gradually the first unicellular organism formed.
Chemical evolution essentially means chemicals evolved into life and in biological evolution means simple life forms like unicellular expanded into multicellular and like that it went on till we have all the variety of life forms that we see now including humans and there is this biological evolution is also called as macro evolution that means a big change from one species to another and there is micro evolution like a change within a species for example instead of a dog of this size, we get a dog of this size or we may get a dog of slightly bigger size this is variation within species so let’s apply the scientific method to the theory of evolution this slide will keep coming back in this show now so we know science has these 4 stages observation, theory, experiment and conclusion so let us see what is the observation now if we look at the fossil record the fossil record means if first of all look around us do we see any transitional species do we see any half man half ape no we don’t we don’t see any half fish half amphibian we don’t see a half reptile half bird so we don’t see any evidence of evolution in the world around us therefore the claim is that evolution happened in the past now how do we know if something happened in the past the past life forms are preserved in the fossils now of course the National Geographic said at the fossil record as a proof for evolution is like a film in which 9 out of the 10 pictures have been cut out what does that mean actually there is so much life form and does all the life form get fossilised no because as it is what gets fossilised is not the flesh and the hair and the skin and the bone and the easily deteriorable parts of the body what gets fossilised is the bones, the skull, the jaws the teeth something like that so fossils are remains of ancient life forms which may be directly the parts of their body or remains of their activity like a foot print or in case of humans it may also include some artefacts like pottery or wall design something like that which they have made so now the study of scientific study of fossils is a branch called as palaeontology so the palaeontology has done extensive research of the fossils but still the point remains that the fossil records is a very incomplete understanding of what happened in life on the earth in the past because most life form will get destroyed and if as you know there is erosion and denudation and then settling so even if something gets fossilised by the progressive generation the soil will get washed away and go under the ocean beds and we can’t go under the ocean beds to extract that is impractical prohibitively expensive and dangerous also so most of fossil extraction takes place below the surface of the crust of the earth, land so that’s why it is national geography that almost 90% of what would have been fossilised is lost what remains is only 10% 1 out of 10 pictures remain in the frame frames remain in that movie but even if we get a fossil now all that we can know for sure was that it lived and it died what if it died before marriage there would be no subsequent generation and then there is no copulation then what happens is we see one fossil and probably this was the kind of life form that was existing throughout the planet at that time or throughout that particular area at that time so inherently the fossil record is highly speculative because we have a very small sample remaining from what was originally existing and from what small sample is remaining even that doesn’t really prove anything in an authoritative way just like if somebody finds one in a city debris one finds one red brick and somebody says ok therefore all the buildings in the city were made of red brick that’s a very gross extrapolation which is not necessarily warranted by the facts linking one living species to another for instance if reptiles truly had evolved into birds then countless half bird half reptile creatures ought to have lived at one time or another and these intermediary creatures the remains of such intermediate forms had to be found in the fossil record and the origin of species he wrote if my theory be true numberless intermediate varieties linking most closely all the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains however Darwin was aware that the fossil record did not contain any of these hypothetical intermediate forms this is why he devoted a special chapter to this in his book and posed these troubled questions why if species have descended from other species by fine gradations do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms but as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth Darwin had supposed that such transitional forms would be discovered when the fossil record was inspected more carefully subsequently evolutionists that followed him examined geological layers all around the world for 140 years and looked for these missing fossils all these efforts ended with great despair the transitional forms imagined by Darwin remained just that figments of imagination palaeontologist Derrick Ager admits this fact though he is an evolutionist the point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail whether at the level of orders or of species we find over and over again not gradual evolution but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another So is this clear till now? If anything is unclear you can ask him. So this palaeontologist is saying that in the fossil record what happens is one species is existing and suddenly that species goes off and another species comes up. So it’s not that the species gradually evolves or changes into that species.
And this whole video is about that. So I will be showing a part of it. So now let’s talk about the oldest fossil record that is there.
That is called the Cambrian Explosion. We call it an explosion because before this in the earth’s crust, now we are assuming here the fossil record is valid, the carbon dating methods are valid. That means assuming all the methodology of science is correct, still science is giving the evidence that evolution is not correct.
So before the Cambrian Explosion most of the life forms in the earth’s crust are seen to be unicellular. And then at this time in the Cambrian Age suddenly a large variety of life forms is formed. So that’s what is explained now.
The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian which has an estimated age of 500 to 530 million years. In strata older than the Cambrian no fossils of any creatures except a few unicellular organisms are to be seen. In the Cambrian Period however many diverse species appear quite abruptly.
More than 30 invertebrate species such as jellyfish, starfish, trilobites and snails emerge all of a sudden. These living beings have complex body systems such as the circulatory system and also very complex organs. For instance the eye of the trilobite is made of hundreds of honeycomb like cells each having a double lens system.
It is a wonder of design. This is the first eye that appeared on the earth and it definitely refutes the Darwinist claim that life evolved from the very primitive towards the complex. Moreover the honeycomb eye structure of trilobites has survived since 530 million years without a single change.
Modern insects such as bees and dragonflies have the same eye structure as did the trilobite. According to the theory of evolution species must have evolved from pre-existing forms. However there is no other complex life form known to have existed before the trilobites and other species of the Cambrian Period.
The Cambrian species came into existence all of a sudden without any ancestors. So he makes two points over here. First is that one species comes into existence without any ancestor.
I mean it just appears in the fossil record. And second is that the species as it was existing then is also existing now. And there are many evidences of say you see a mosquito million years ago.
The mosquito structure is same as what it is now. If we take a tadpole or a frog 5 million years ago it is the same as what it is now. So that means before the appearance of the species there is no evidence that it evolved from one to another.
And after it appears there is no evidence that it evolves into some other species. Now both are required in the idea of evolution. The English zoologist Richard Dawkins makes the following confession on the subject.
It is as though the species of the Cambrian were just planted there without any evolutionary history. This situation refutes the theory of evolution for sure because Darwin wrote in the Origin of Species. If numerous species belonging to the same genera or families have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.
This fatal stroke that frightened Darwin comes from the Cambrian period right at the outset of the fossil record. So this is the first part, the observation. So first of all there is hardly any supporting fossil to support the idea that evolution took place gradually over many many millennia.
Now if we see, if evolution is true, this is what is claimed, then where are the intermediate links between ape and man? Now generally how Darwin came up with the idea was, when he was travelling along the coast of America on a ship, he observed the flora and fauna and based on those observations he speculated. He saw the similarity between men and apes and he saw that men and apes have similar gestures. Monkeys also scratch their head, monkeys also frown, they also wink.
So based on this physical characteristics and the similarities he thought that one has evolved into another. However there is a logical flaw that comes in this. You see there are apes, there are ape-men and then there are men.
So now if apes evolved into ape-men in the middle one, now obviously that ape-men were better suited than apes for the environment. That’s why they would have evolved, isn’t it? Otherwise they would not have evolved. How the evolution takes place according to him is that a species has a particular structure or a feature which is more suited for the environment than the others.
So therefore that feature, those members of the species with that feature stay for a longer time. So if one ape is taller than the others or can stand a little more erect, then say a male and female copulate and then they give rise to something which will reproduce and that will get accumulated over many generations. So obviously the ape-men were fitter than the apes.
So if the ape-men were fitter than the apes for the environment, then why did the ape-men become extinct and the apes continue to stay? Isn’t it? So now this is a logical flaw which some scientists pointed out. So then scientists changed the theory. And they said that actually apes did not evolve into men.
Apes and men both evolved from some common ancestor. And that common ancestor has become extinct. Because it has evolved in two ways now.
But then this is like imagining evidence to keep a theory alive. The original theory was apes evolved into men. But then theory is defeated because ape-men are not there.
But then there were these creatures and they evolved into different. But then it is if we see so many apes, so many humans, so many varieties of apes, so many varieties of humans. But if all of these millions and millions of apes and humans have evolved from one ancestor, then surely the ancestor must have also populated the world quite extensively.
And why is it that not a single fossil of such an ancestor has been found? So what one scientist, there are several important scientists, well-known evolutionists. So you will see this now about the lack of evidence. So now this was the original picture, the evolutionary tree.
First there is the earth. And then we have aquatics, unicellular aquatics. And gradually the different species are coming up.
So this is what is taught in the textbooks. And there are the ages also, pre-U.K., M.D. and all this word jugglery, name jugglery is used, which makes it appear very scientific and authentic. But first thing that happened is that if you see the evolutionary tree, say here there are aquatics and here there are amphibians.
And maybe over here there are reptiles. So what one scientist, Stephen Jay Gould says, he is a believing evolutionist, he says in this evolutionary tree we have evidences of fossils only at the branches, not in the connection. That means we have amphibians and we have aquatics.
But we don’t have anything in between. We have aquatics, we have amphibians and we have reptiles. We don’t have anything in between.
So then that means the whole tree is actually filled with imaginary links. So not only there is no supporting evidence, but researchers have found a lot of, that’s what Darwin himself admitted, not one change of species into another is on record. We cannot prove that a single species has changed.
So this was Darwin at the end of his life. But then he dealt with this by saying we have kept the fossil record very imperfectly. The future when we examine it, we will find a support.
But then what happened? Subsequent research showed that actually if you see here, this research shows artefacts which were found at the age when only fishes are there on this planet. So when fishes are there on this planet, you find a structure like a cricket ball. So a round spherical metal object with a groove on it.
So fishes used to play cricket. Or when only monkeys are there, they have found a golden chain. So monkeys in their marriage would give golden chains to each other.
So this is the evidence which scientists only have found. But this evidence has been neglected and suppressed to keep the theory of evolution alive. That means not only is the supporting evidence not there, but there is a contradicting evidence.
So this is two devotee scientists. Srila Prabhupada also wanted that devotees use their intelligence to preach in the scientific world. So these are two devotee scientists, Michael Cremo and Richard L. Thomson.
They are Dhritakarma Prabhu and Sadaputha Prabhu, the Prabhupada disciples. So they wrote this amazing masterpiece, Forbidden Archaeology. Do we have it here with us, one copy? How many of you have seen this book? Can you just get one copy? It’s open here? Or otherwise if not available, then 4 o’clock we can show it.
So this book is a masterpiece. It gives hundreds and hundreds of anomalous evidences. Anomalous means that evidences which contradict the theory of evolution.
It proves that humans were existing on this planet for a very very long time. Long before what Darwin’s theory allows. So after this book came out, it became a controversial bestseller.
And it has even now become like a textbook. And even now, palaeontologists research and refer to this book. That’s the first part.
Is the book available? Okay, later we shall see. I’ll come back to this. So then this is Ernst Mayr and George Gaylord Simpson.
So who is called the most influential palaeontologist of 20th century in Wikipedia. So what do they say in their book, Palaeontology and Evolution? In the chapter called Genetics. Yes, who would like to read? Links are missing just where we must fervently desire them.
And it is too probable that many links will continue to be missing. So links are missing where we fervently desire them. That means there should be transitional species evidence.
But it is just not there. I have got a whole series of 70 quotes. All these are not, I want scientists, although there are two kinds of scientists.
There are evolutionists and there are creationists. Creationists are the scientists who say that God created everything. And many of the leading scientists throughout history, starting from Newton, Copernicus, then Kelvin, Maxwell, Max Born, Einstein, India’s Srinivasa Ramachandran, all of them were creationists.
They believed that God created everything. But these are quotes which are given not by creationists but by evolutionists. They propose this theory but still they are forced to admit that there is no evidence for the theory.
So I am just giving one sample over here. So now the next part comes up. That okay, first we have observation.
Is there any observation? No. So I was reading one book by one scientist. He says many times some scientists who oppose evolution try to prove that evolution is not a fact.
He said we will not make this mistake. We will not try to prove that evolution is not a fact. We will prove that evolution is not even a theory.
What this means is that actually there are two sciences. There is morphology and there is anatomy. What is morphology? Study of physical form, external physical form.
Anatomy is internal structure. So morphologically the theory of evolution appears plausible. Maybe it is possible that monkeys and humans look similar.
And like that one species may be similar to another. But anatomically if we see, the structural dissimilarities between different species are huge. They are simply awesome.
And they cannot be explained away very easily. In fact the theory of evolution was proposed by two scientists. One was Charles Darwin and other was Alfred Wallis.
So both of them co-proposed it. But before the theory was tabled, Alfred Wallis withdrew his name. And he wrote a letter which is still there on the internet and is preserved in the British Museum.
So what Wallis wrote is that you are saying that the simians evolved into humans. But look at the level of complexity of the human brain and compare it to the simian brain. There is no way that the simian brain could have evolved into a human brain.
It’s like if you have the electronic circuitry in a calculator and you have the electronic circuitry in one of the latest computers. What is the latest computer? Yeah, some V3 or something like that. Some very pimp.
The latest computer. So now both are electronic circuitry. And if you take an internal look, there is a huge difference.
Now for a person who would have said, I type some buttons, I get a result here. I type some buttons, I get a result there. It may seem similar.
But actually there is a huge structural difference. We had evolution, I think. Okay, I will talk about evolution later.
Thank you. So then Einstein, Darwin wrote a letter back to Alfred Wallace and he said, I hope that you have not murdered our baby by this letter of yours. What does it mean? Who is the baby? I hope you have not murdered.
Because that fact is fatal. The anatomical structural differences between one species and another. And for example, the theory of evolution proposes that aquatics eventually became amphibians and eventually aquatics went on to become mammals.
And aquatics respire by gills. And mammals respire by lungs. It’s a completely different structure.
And there is no way that by gradual step-by-step change an evolution will lead to this sort of change. Because the transitional stages will not be an advantage but a disadvantage. For example, let’s say the eye.
Now when we talk about the eye, the eye is so complicated and coordinated. There has to be the eye, there has to be a socket for the eye, there has to be an eyebrow. If any of these is not there, imagine there is no socket for the eye.
Only the eye is hanging out. Extremely vulnerable, isn’t it? Or if the socket is there and the eye is there, but the eyelid is not there. And again, very vulnerable.
Any dust particle can go inside, any sort of danger can come up. Therefore, the eye socket, the eye and the eyelid all have to be present simultaneously. And this is called as an organ of irreducible complexity.
Irreducible complexity. The whole idea of evolution is to try to reduce complex life forms to simple. And this is how simple the complex scheme is.
But we see there is irreducible complexity. For example, a building is reducible. There is a wall here, there is a wall here, there is a floor here.
And one by one we can construct that and eventually we can get the building. But with the eye, it cannot be like that. Imagine if somebody, some structure has the eye without the eyelid, then in the struggle for existence, what will happen? There will be a very serious disadvantage.
It won’t be an advantage. Therefore, the anatomical perspective to the evolution is actually a serious problem. Now going further, at the time of Darwin, he thought that if some physical features are there, say example, ok I will take one example to explain this.
So Darwin himself said it is highly hypothetical. It is highly speculative, highly theoretical. So now let us look at some examples of what the theory requires.
So anatomically, morphologically it may be ok, it is possible that some species may start flying. But let us look at it. So this is actually not science, it is actually science fiction.
And in reality the fiction doesn’t work. See there is a squirrel who is hungry and there is no food for it on the trees. So it sees an insect that is going away.
And it thinks ok, let me jump and catch that insect. And then, now there is a necessity. Necessity is that it should be able to catch an insect.
But based on necessity, can it develop wings automatically? It jumps, but it doesn’t develop the wings. What happens? It just falls off. So actually wings are a very complicated structure and it just cannot develop like this.
So if you see, this is what he says, Stephen Gould. The idea that an arm could evolve into a wing is absurd. And he is also an evolutionist, Stephen Gould.
Now again, look at a giraffe. There are whole books written on the long neck of a giraffe. There are several things in nature which gave nightmares to Darwin.
Two among them were the long neck of the giraffe and the multicoloured feather of the peacock. How by evolution all these colours in the feather would come about? Now with respect to giraffe, what is the obvious problem for evolution? Giraffe is so tall. Now what happened is, Darwin proposed that probably at that time, because all the other normally the four-legged grazers, grazers means those which graze on grass, so four-legged grazers were eating grass, but because of shortage caused by famine or whatever, there was no grass to eat.
Therefore, what happened? Those grazers which were little taller than others, they survived because they could reach out and take the fruits and the flowers and the leaves from the trees. And they united and gradually by that what happened? These, over many many generations, he says, the antelopes evolved into giraffes. Now morphologically, it may appear okay, the longer, longer, taller, taller ones evolved and then you have a taller child and a taller child and like that it goes on.
But now, if you look at the giraffe anatomically, to understand, let’s do this experiment. Just move your head up and down. Like this.
Do it ten times. How do you start feeling? Dizzy. What happens is, see our heart is pumping blood into the head and if the head is like this, then the blood has to be pumped up at a high pressure.
But if you move the head like this, then what happens? Then the blood which is moving up at a high pressure, it comes too fast into the brain and then it has to be regulated. So, because this continuous change in the blood pressure that is there in the blood going to the head, it causes dizziness because of repeated regulation that is required. Now imagine if blood has to be pumped into the head of a giraffe.
That is 2.5 metre long neck. So how much will be the blood pressure that will be required to pump that up? Now, how is it that the giraffe is able to sustain its brain when it bends down to drink water? Now one more problem with the idea that the giraffe, that the antelope evolved into a giraffe because it had a longer neck is that, actually even if it had a long neck, it had to bend down its neck to drink water because water will not come on the trees. So if it has to bend down its neck, then what will happen? Suddenly the blood is moving like that 2.5 metres up, huge pressure and it has to come down.
So what will happen actually is, actually in the brain of the giraffe, there are special elastic blood vessels which contract and expand depending on the way the neck is inclined. And that’s how the blood pressure is regulated. And these sort of mechanisms are not there in other antelopes.
So now, consider the hypothetical situation, as the giraffe has evolved its long neck and then at a prehistoric event, so it has evolved its long neck, morphologically the change has taken place over many, many generations. It wants to drink water. So what happens? It develops a headache while bending down.
And while bending down it develops a headache and it hopes for the evolution of walls. That’s what will happen. Because it is not so easy to do.
So again the same point I am making, morphologically it may appear plausible, but anatomically it is not. So that’s why Dr. Fleischmann, a zoologist said that the Darwinian theory is not the result of scientific research. Scientific research means anatomy.
But pure is the product of imagination. That means the similarity between morphological forms. Let’s look at another video now.
So I will show a little bit of this now and I will show it later. Darwin proposed a single concept as his evolutionary mechanism, natural selection. The title of his book clearly reveals the importance he gave in this mechanism, the origin of species by means of natural selection.
Natural selection is based on the idea that strong individuals that are well adapted to their habitats will survive. For example, in a herd of deer threatened by predators, the ones that can run faster will survive. After a while, the herd will consist mostly of strong, swift individuals as the weaker and slower ones fall prey.
However, this mechanism does not cause deer to evolve. It does not transform them into another species. For instance, horses.
Natural selection only eliminates weak, disabled and sick individuals and ensures the permanence and health of a particular species. It has no evolutionary power. Darwin was also aware of this problem.
This is why he confessed in The Origin of Species that natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur. About the emergence of favourable traits, Darwin was deeply influenced by one of his contemporaries, the French biologist, Lamarck. Lamarck thought that living things passed their acquired traits to future generations.
In Lamarck’s view, giraffes evolved from deer-like creatures. Their necks extended from generation to generation as they tried to reach higher branches for food. Lamarck also believed that if the arms of the livers of a family were cut off for generations, the babies would start to be born armless after a while.
Darwin, who was quite influenced by these examples, came up with an even bolder claim. In The Origin of Species, he argued that some bears, while trying to hunt in water, evolved into whales. But both Lamarck and Darwin were wrong.
Their ideas were contrary to some fundamental laws of biology. In their day, genetics, microbiology, or biochemistry did not exist at all as branches of science. The laws of inheritance were not known at all.
Indeed, both Lamarck and Darwin thought that hereditary traits were transferred through the blood. Due to this primitive level of science at the time, the imaginary scenarios of the theory of evolution were not looked upon as odd at all. Darwin’s theses had a great impact on the scientific circles of his day.
However, Darwin was still distressed. In the chapter, Difficulties on Theory, he wrote, If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Darwin’s fears proved to be true soon after his death.
The laws of inheritance discovered by an Austrian botanist, Gregor Mendel, caused Lamarck’s and Darwin’s assertions to collapse. The science of genetics that developed at the beginning of the 20th century proved that it was not acquired physical traits, but only genes that were transmitted to subsequent generations. This discovery made it clear that a scenario suggesting that acquired traits accumulated from generation to generation and generated different living species was implausible.
In other words, there were no inheritable variations for Darwin’s proposed mechanism of natural selection to choose from. Subsequently, the theory of evolution as advanced by Darwin has been collapsed early in the 20th century. All the other efforts by evolutionists in the 20th century could do nothing but only confirm that natural selection had no evolutionary power.
So basically, what Darwin thought was that, say, two tall antelopes unite and they give a taller antelope and like that go on to a giraffe. So basically, he thought that physical characteristics acquired in one life form would be accumulated over many generations. But then, when microbiology and genetics was discovered, it was found that what passes on from one generation to another is not the physical characteristics.
What carries on inherited characteristics are the genes, isn’t it? Now, what does this imply? Say, there are two antelopes, two four-legged, something like a deer, and they have been stretching their neck a long time, a long time, a long time. That’s why they have become a little taller, their necks have become a little longer. But when they unite and they pass on, what they will pass on will be their genes.
And by the stretching of their necks, have their genes changed? No. So, even if they stretch their necks a lot, still the next generation will have its bodily form decided by the genes. And they will start off from the same level where their ancestors were.
So, there will be no accumulation of the change over generations. And therefore, the idea of accumulation of changes by natural selection, leading to a variation of species, does not work. It practically collapsed.
Now, scientists give some pseudo-proofs for evolution. So, I will talk with that and conclude that for the afternoon. Often, scientists say that you look at the African man, or you look at the Nepalese man, or you say that, imagine a person goes from here to the polar area and starts living there.
Then, if he lives there for many years, his skin becomes thicker and tougher. And he develops some characteristics similar to those of the people who are living there. Or when European people come to India, then, because of the Indian weather, their skin becomes tanned.
And they say that this is itself you are seeing adaptation occurring. We adapt to our environment. This is how adaptation has taken place and this is how the different species have come about.
Now, this is an example of micro-evolution used to prove macro-evolution. Micro-evolution means change within species. Okay, a human being from the tropical area may go into the polar area and maybe his skin becomes tougher and thicker and he becomes more adapted to live like an Eskimo living there.
But a human being doesn’t change into a polar bear. Human being remains a human being. So, change within species has been observed that happens naturally and that can be made to happen artificially also.
Like breeding is there. So, change within species does not prove change across species. So, all the proofs that scientists give are for change within species.
Yes, we humans have the ability to adapt to our environment. But that is also within a limited range. If we could adapt to any level of environment, then humans could flourish in the polar areas also.
There is so much congestion and lack of evolutive land. Why can’t all humans go and live in the polar areas? So much Antarctica is just lying waste. But we can’t because there is a limit to how much we can adapt.
There is a temperature range to which we can adapt and if the temperature goes too much below or too much above, we can’t survive. So, that’s why adaptation or any of the other changes, like say breeding, they are all characterised by what scientists call as the rubber band effect. Rubber band effect means, if you have a rubber band of this size, you pull it, what happens? I was trying to bring a rubber band.
Anyway. If you have a rubber band, you pull it, what happens? It gets pulled to a certain extent. But as soon as you leave it, what happens? It comes back to its original length.
And if you pull it too much, what happens? So, you have one. Very good. So, we all have seen this.
You pull it, as soon as it comes back to normal length. If I pull it too much, what will happen? It will break. Similarly, that means, actually when scientists try to do breeding, or they try to bring about some changes, then, when scientists try to bring about some changes, if you let that particular offspring stay in its normal situation and naturally reproduce, that breeding species will come back to its normal characteristics.
And like we have hybrid seeds and things like that. It will not stay in the abnormal, it will come back to the normal. And if we try to, like scientists may, for example, they may unite a dog, a cow and a buffalo, a donkey and a horse and get a mule.
Or they may unite a cow and some other species and get a Jersey cow. Something like that they may do. Now, they are all mammals.
You cannot unite a cow with a tiger. That is limited. If you try to do a lab, it will break down.
The cow will be dead. So, there is limitation to evolution. So, this is the misleading nature of evolutionists.
When they don’t get solid scientific evidence to support their theory, then they use pseudo-evidence. They use the juggler and they use evidence for micro-evolution to prove evolution. So, we will continue with this point now.
So, till now we have talked primarily about biological evolution. So, now we will talk about, when you come back at 4 o’clock, we will show another CD of how, sometimes scientists say, in the future, in the future, we will show evidence for evolution. In the future, we will show how life can come from chemicals.
In the future, we will give mechanisms of how one species can evolve into another. So, what does the verdict of science over the last 150 years since Darwin proposed his theory say about this future proof of evolution? That we will see with a 9 more minute excellent movie on bacterial flagella. So, thank you very much.