Theory of Evolution – part 2

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
The meanings of the word evolution, does anyone remember? And chemical, biological and microevolution. Then we discussed how as far as observation is concerned, there are no supporting fossil records and there are opposing fossil records. The fossil records show that a species comes into existence suddenly with no past history and it stays the same throughout millions of years, it doesn’t change.
On the other hand, we also see that there are humans existing very long ago. We saw the picture of the forbidden archaeology book and the suppressed evidence about archaeology. Then we were discussing about chemical evolution and before that we discussed something about microevolution and how microevolution doesn’t prove macroevolution.
So now we are a little late today, so this was a ten minute movie but I will be showing five minutes now, a small part of it. So this basically talks about how the chemical evolution at life, the original life, unicellular life could have come from chemicals was much more plausible at the time of Darwin than it is now. That means future scientific research is making evolution appear much more unlikely than what it was originally.
This scientist, he is a person named Dr. Michael Behe, so this Dr. Michael Behe himself did a PhD in molecular biology and he was teaching evolution and he never came to know about problems about evolution till he read one book by an Australian biologist named Richard Danton, Evolutionary Theory in Crisis and then he realised that there are so many serious problems with the Darwinian theory which he never, which he was never taught when he studied evolution and he did a PhD course and became a professor but he didn’t come to know about it and then he felt as if I have been misled and since then he has become the pioneer of what is called as the intelligent design movement. So this is a movement of scientists with members from all over the world who say that based on the verdict of scientific research, we feel there is a need for an intelligent designer behind the design that we see in nature. So now he is explaining one of the reasons, one of the evidences which made him come to this conclusion.
upon a system of intricately arranged mechanical parts. These parts come into focus when portions of a cell are magnified 50,000 times. Biochemists have used electron micrographs like this one to identify the parts and three-dimensional structure of the flagellar motor.
In the process, they have revealed a marvel of engineering on a miniaturised scale. Howard Berg at Harvard has labelled it the most efficient machine in the universe. These machines, some of them are running at 100,000 RPMs and are hardwired into a signal transduction or sensory mechanism so that it is getting feedback in the environment.
And even though they are spinning that fast, they can stop on a dot. It only takes a quarter turn for them to stop and shift directions and start spinning 100,000 RPM in the other direction. So is that clear what he is saying? These are both used for motion as well as for sensor.
So as soon as the bacteria senses that there is some danger, it immediately reverses direction. You saw that small bacteria which is moving this way, that way, that way. So how is it able to change the direction? Based on how it is perceiving danger or it is perceiving the opportunity for some nutrition or whatever.
So these rotors are moving at what speed? 100,000 RPM. And they are moving so fast and as soon as they sense that there is a danger, they stop. In how much time? One-fourth of a rotation.
Now take the best, most efficient car, if it is going at 100 km per hour, it will take some metres before it can come to a stop. But it stops in one-fourth of a revolution and then within the next one-fourth, it has acquired the speed of 1000 RPM and is moving in the opposite direction. That’s why the Harvard University professor, he called this the most efficient machine in the entire universe.
Now what has this got to do with evolution? He explains now. And just like outboard motors on motorboats, it has a large number of parts which are necessary for the motor to work. The bacterial flagellum, two gears, forward and reverse, water cool, proton motive force, it has a stator, it has a rotor, it has a u-joint, it has a drive shaft, it has a propeller.
And they function as these parts of machines. It’s not convenient that we give them these names. That’s truly their function.
Since its discovery, scientists have tried to understand how a rotary motor could have arisen through natural selection. As yet, they have failed to offer any detailed Darwinian explanation. Darwinism was a lot more plausible when we were thinking about globs of protoplasm than it is when we’re thinking about molecular machines.
Scientists in Darwin’s day were hopeful that the complexity of biology would resolve to simplicity once they found the basis of life. But we found out the exact opposite. In the 20th century, we found out that the lower you go from whole animal to organ to tissues and cells, the more complex life becomes.
And that the very basis of life, the cell, is just outrageously complex. And so the 19th century hope that life at the bottom would be a simple phenomenon is spectacularly wrong. So, earlier in the morning I was telling you about organs of irreducible complexity.
So, this motor, or this flagella, which functions as a motor, imagine if it has developed a capacity to move. It’ll be a big burden in the struggle, isn’t it? Any predator can catch it and devour it. So, if any of the parts is not there in the motor, the motor cannot function.
So, therefore, this is an example of organ of irreducible complexity. And this is present not in the organ, but it is present at the unicellular level. And like that, there are many, many organs which scientists have found out.
Therefore, the idea that, okay, life as we know is complex, but at the cellular level it’ll be simple, and therefore it might have come from chemicals. That was Darwin’s hope. But what we are finding, even at the cellular level, life is extremely complex.
And that’s why in 19th century there might have been hope that life could have come from chemicals, simple life forms. But now, what we call as simple life forms are themselves, as he says, outrageously complex. And therefore, the 19th century hope that the complexity of biology would resolve into simplicity is spectacularly wrong.
That’s the word that he used. So, this is with respect to the chance of chemical evolution. Now, going back to our PPT.
As a mechanism, by natural step-by-step processes, the chance that life would evolve into unicellular organisms. Unicellular organisms would evolve into multicellular and all life forms. That is, actually, if you go to the theoretical level, it’s becoming more and more improbable.
Now, scientists talk about another thing which is called as genetic mutation. So, this is used to say that all life forms will evolve by the variation of genetic structures. Let us see what they want to say about this.
Or distortions that take place in the DNA of living beings, mostly as a result of external effects, such as radiation or chemical action. The theory of evolution now holds that living things are differentiated from one another and develop as a result of mutations. This cannot be true.
For mutations only damage the information in the DNA and give only harm to a living being. No beneficial mutation has yet been observed either in nature or in laboratories. Such mutations do not add new genetic information.
It is impossible for living beings to acquire new organs through mutations. No reptile could ever acquire wings, nor could an eyeless creature develop eyes by mutations. For decades, evolutionists subjected different living beings to the effects of radiation and chemicals in an attempt to obtain favourable mutations.
What they always ended up with were disabled, deficient, or barren creatures. Countless experiments carried out on fruit flies have shown that the effects of mutations are not beneficial, but rather destructive or fatal. Mutations disrupt the perfect DNA code of a living thing and turn it into a freak of nature.
This is why Professor Richard Dawkins, one of the most renowned advocates of the theory of evolution of our day, hesitates when he is asked to give a single example that increases the genetic information. Professor Dawkins, can we give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome? The truth is very evident. Life has such a complex design that can never come about by chance.
A mechanical watch cannot be formed as a result of the coincidental assembling of cards. And it proves that there is an intelligent watchmaker. Likewise.
So we saw about genetic mutation. Sometimes scientists use some high-sounding words and they do a lot of bombastic word jugglery So first of all, many people hear the word genes but what genes are and what can genes do and what genes cannot do, that most people don’t know. At a simple level, basically genes are like a computer programme.
Simplistic analogy. Just like there is a computer programme which can make a machine operate. Similarly, the genes contain like a computer code which brings about the development of the body.
So now if say if we are doing a mutation, basically what are we doing? Sending some rays inside. So this is a computer programme which is written using these four basic chemicals, adenine, guanine, thymine like that. Cytosine.
So those four. So basically, now if we send in some rays what is going to happen is that it’s like deleting one of the lines in the programme. So a mutation is never going to add any additional information to the existing gene.
Therefore a mutation can never result in a new organ being formed. At best like it was shown a cow may develop an additional leg or a cow may develop one leg deformed. As it is three things.
Either deformed, deficient or barren creatures are produced by mutation. So mutation is never known to be beneficial. It’s like we are writing a computer programme and we make a mistake in the computer programme.
Some scientists use the word there are lucky accidents. Now what does a lucky accident mean? Suppose two cars collide head on and nobody dies. And that’s lucky.
You are really lucky. It was a big accident but you survived. But if two cars collide that doesn’t mean that a Mercedes Benz will come out of it.
Isn’t it? So lucky accident means where there is a possibility of lot of damage but little damage takes place. Lucky accident doesn’t mean that something beneficial happens out of the accident. Isn’t it? So mutations are never known to do any good.
And therefore this theory of genetic mutation does not offer any substantial basis to the theory of evolution. Now again scientists try to speculate and say no maybe actually the genes of all the organisms are similar. And there is one master programme and from that master programme all the species are evolved.
So there is not evolution by natural selection. There is evolution by something like genetic selection. So there are some scientists who try to propose that.
But then this is completely speculative. Because we see there is tremendous dissimilarity in structure and the genes are also sometimes scientists might say that actually between the apes and the humans there is only 3% difference in genes. And they say only 3% difference? Maybe it has changed.
But you don’t know 3% difference means 900 million cells difference. That is not told. So this is deceptive.
Isn’t it? 3% level of genes is huge difference. And therefore this sort of deceptive presentation cannot actually support the theory of evolution. Another thing that sometimes scientists argue is actually the very fact that apes and humans are similar means that they must have evolved from one to another.
If God had to create, why would he create two similar? He could have created two entirely dissimilar also. How do we know what God would have done? If God is an efficient designer, just like a potter A potter makes one prototype pot and then he makes variants in that. So the similarity in the structures of say humans and simians or similarity in the structure of mammals that is a data which can be interpreted both ways.
That in no way supports the idea of evolution. So there are many such pseudo-evidences which are given. Now for example there is something called a vestigial organ that means these organs which we were using before but now we are not using.
So now vestigial organ is used as a proof for evolution. Now vestigial organ actually has nothing to do with evolution. Because like now appendix as I found out when we were eating raw vegetables so when we eat raw vegetables then the appendix secretes a fluid that is used for digesting it.
So now we are not eating raw vegetables so they feel we don’t need it. But now scientists have found a peculiar digestive disease that results in those whose appendix is removed. And therefore scientists have now become very cautious about removing the appendix.
They now feel that it contributes to the digestive system although we are not able to understand how it contributes. So anyway, just 100-150 years ago the pituitary gland was thought to be an example of a vestigial organ. A pituitary gland is a master gland in the body.
So vestigial organ means that there is an organ in the body for which we don’t know the function. And how does that prove evolution? No, no, that means when we were monkeys and eating raw vegetables, at that time we were using it now we are not using it. See, it’s like earlier I said you find one red brick and say that the whole city was red.
No, somebody else from another city might have brought the red brick also over there. Who knows? So the vestigial organ just means several possibilities. One is that we don’t know what use it is.
Second is that because of change in social, cultural circumstances we may not be using that organ. But that doesn’t prove evolution. Now what is required if evolution has to be proved? First thing is there has to be evidence of transitional species.
Secondly, not just evidence of transitional species there has to be a systematic scientific mechanism describing how one species will change into another. Which is also not there. So a little few pieces here and there they are touted as evidence and it is said that the evolution theory is true.
But this is completely misleading. And the variations that we see within species, for example I talked about breeding, isn’t it? So sometimes we may have a big dog and a small dog. We may have a doberman, we may have a poodle, we may have a normal dog, a spaniel.
But they are all dogs. We can’t change a dog into any other species by any process. So therefore most of what is portrayed as evidence for evolution is not actually the evidence for evolution.
It is the evidence for micro-evolution, not for macro-evolution. So micro-evolution is not denied, micro-evolution is accepted but micro-evolution doesn’t prove macro-evolution. So adaptation basically refers to micro-evolution.
Breeding also involves change within species not change across species. So what Shila Prabhupada the founder of RISCON he was among the first spiritual leaders in the world who felt strongly that this evolution theory has to be refuted. Because he found that most people get so much mental filters on their head because of this thinking that life has come from evolution that they just don’t consider the idea of God especially in the western world.
In India, it is not so much effect. Indians just care for marks and money. No.
A student will go to the temple of Ganesh and say Hey Ganesh, aaj bahut muskil paper hai. Aaj evolution ka paper hai. Pass kar dena.
The paper is disproving the existence of God and he is praying to God to help him pass in that paper. So Indians don’t care much. But still, scientific propaganda is there.
But in the western world, most people have started believing this. And because of that they are not open minded. Therefore what Shila Prabhupada wanted is that devotees should actually strongly refute this theory of evolution.
And unfortunately many religions, even the Christian Catholic Church they capitulated to the pressure of the scientific community and they said God created but through evolution. Now, evolution itself says there is no God. So how can we say God created through evolution? No.
God created and He made the mechanism of evolution work. This is like giving God the consolation prize. So no.
A devotee can actually use science to establish the existence of God and to establish the fallacies of theories like evolution which claim to disprove the existence of God. So therefore Shila Prabhupada started the Bhaktivedanta Institute which was the scientific wing of ISKCON to actually spread the message of the Vedic literature in scientific language. And the Bhaktivedanta Institute has done a lot of work.
I showed you that book Forbidden Archaeology. It’s published. The Bhaktivedanta Institute is doing scientific research to prove the existence of God and to disprove the theory of evolution.
And as practising devotees we have to be strongly convinced that this theory of evolution is not science. It is actually the pseudoscience masquerading as science. And there is scientific basis for our faith in God.
And Shila Prabhupada was very strong about this. Shila Prabhupada was asked by one person Swamiji, I say men have evolved from monkeys. Prabhupada said where is the question of evolution? I say men are still monkeys.
That means with respect to intelligence their intelligence has not developed. In fact if you see from the Vedic point of view men are living like monkeys. We have reverse evolution.
Men degenerating the level of monkey consciousness. But the fact remains that actually the evolutionary theory has led to the idea that for the success in life one needs to have competition. One needs to have warfare.
One needs to actually attack, exploit and conquer others and be successful. That’s why today we have words like concrete jungle, corporate warfare, cutthroat competition. But if you see life is based on love and cooperation.
Isn’t that what we see? In family friendship means love and cooperation. Love means cooperation, selflessness. In a family there is not survival of the fittest.
Isn’t it? Family means whoever is having difficulty we help that person. So we see that human consciousness and the human qualities get trampled upon by theories like evolution. So if children are taught that they came from monkeys then why will they not behave like monkeys? They will just behave in unrestricted, uncontrolled selfish ways.
So actually the theory of evolution opens the ways to immorality and violence. Immorality and violence are always there in society but by evolution violence seems to be the right thing to do. Because that’s the way we have evolved.
So therefore at an individual level for the practise of our Christian consciousness as well as at a social level for there to be harmony and peace in society this idea of evolution has to be refuted. And we at our level should become convinced and generally in our preaching there are different levels of preaching. Just like say there is a traditional audience who already have some faith in scriptures so we go and speak.
We are not the children of monkeys, we are the children of Brahma. People appreciate that. That is one level of argument and people don’t need much higher than that.
And then there is Prabhupada’s level of argument. Prabhupada says that if monkeys have evolved into humans then if the cause has produced the experiment, why is the cause existing? The cause shouldn’t be there. Prabhupada uses logic.
He did powerful preaching and many scientists when they came in front of him they couldn’t refute his arguments. But then Prabhupada also said to his disciples you should preach the same message in the language of the scientists. So then the one level higher would be speaking scientific stuff to scientifically minded people.
So that is what we are doing. So now one level higher than this is that speaking scientific terminology to scientists. And that is what devotees are also doing.
So we don’t need to do that but we need to be convinced ourselves. So we have some basic scientific stuff and we can scientifically through analysis and logic explain the fallacies of evolution. And if we do this then we become convinced and we can share this conviction with others and save ourselves and society from this disaster of atheism which is going on in the name of science.
Just recently in America a movie was released called Expelled. Intelligence not allowed. So what is this movie about? There was a scientific reporter who started doing research about evolution and he was shocked to find that opposition to evolution is not entertained in the academia.
Now we saw so logically isn’t it? Evolution theory is not correct. Then we wonder why is it there in the textbooks? Because all the important professors, the important journals, scientific journals they are all controlled by evolutionists. And they don’t allow anyone to penetrate through.
That is imagine if you want to write a PhD thesis and your PhD thesis is opposed to the idea of your project guide. What hope do you have to get it published? Very difficult. If we want to write something which is opposed to the idea of the editor of a magazine.
There is no way you can get it. So like that it’s a closed loop. And although there is so much scientific and logical refutation of evolution it’s very difficult to get inside.
Because we may talk about this but for the scientific textbook to change this has to be published in scientific journals. And that is not being done. So then he released this movie.
This Ben Stein is an American scientific journalist and this movie will come to India also soon. It’s a documentary which shows how scientists who tried to oppose the theory of evolution their careers were devastated. They were fired, they were disgraced.
So this devotee scientist Dr. Michael Cremo, he was very intelligent. What he did was he first wrote a book this Forbidden Archaeology. Spent 8 years doing research on writing the book.
And then he came to India for the World Archaeological Congress. And these are all American scientists coming. And he gave a topic, Puranic Time and the Archaeological Record.
So he said, how if we consider the Puranic version of history? Then Brahmaji was there so many millions of years ago. And then the Manu Manantar you know there is a parlay at the end of every Manu Mantar. Beyond this we will not be able to find fossils.
Till this date we will be able to find fossils. And then he showed the oldest fossil is of the date of the last Manu Mantar. And he gave some amazing correlations.
So his paper was a big success. And then he was invited to many other conferences and there was television interviews and there were radio interviews. And then in America on the American national television they broadcast his programme.
And then after that when the teachers were teaching evolution to the students they would say, oh this evidence is false. Yesterday we saw it in television. And this evidence is also false.
So what he did was in his book all the evidences which are portrayed as evidence for evolution he showed how all of them are false. They are basically doctored evidences. So actually when we get a fossil sometimes some people say Neanderthal man and they show imagination, beard is there and savage hair is coming out and their hands are there.
Now this is not what you find in the fossil. Fossil means you just find some bones. And the colour of the hair and the amount of hair that is all just the imagination of the evolutionists.
So he showed that this is not true. And then the American scientific organisation, the atheist organisation they called up the television channel director and he said how dare you show non-scientific stuff on your channel. We will sue you in court.
So he got a little unnerved and he came to Michael Cremo and Michael Cremo said, what is unscientific about my research? Everything is scientific. And he reassured him. And that ABC TV channel director he got convinced and he decided to re-broadcast the programme.
And he said, watch the programme that the scientists don’t want you to watch. And next time he had 10 times more viewership. So it was hugely successful.
So that’s how he got into the public limelight. And now he started publishing papers and he is percolating into the scientific world also. So the book that he wrote that Forbidden Archaeology that has sold over 10 lakh copies till now.
It has been translated into 25 languages including Chinese. Afterwards, scientists started saying if your theory is opposing evolution then you should give a substitute. How can you oppose evolution? You must have some other theory.
And if you don’t have any other theory then you cannot oppose evolution. This is like saying that suppose I had to clear my throat because there was a sandstorm on the second satellite orbiting Jupiter. And unless you can prove that this theory is wrong this theory is true.
See, if somebody is proposing a theory the responsibility to prove the theory is on the proponent not if the opponent has to go out to disprove the theory. So if scientists are saying evolution is true then it’s for them to provide evidence. But still, they allege so then he has proposed a theory called human devolution.
Not evolution but devolution. So the first chapter in his book that Fallen Angels or Ascended Apes We are not apes who have ascended from lower spiritual to higher. Actually we are children of God who have fallen from the spiritual world.
This is a book by Xerox. We are ordering some copies from Pune also. So this is a very systematic and scientific book.
I read the whole book and it is so logical and convincing about how the theory of evolution is deficient. So basically what he says in his human devolution theory he says that before we can understand how human beings have evolved, we should first of all understand what is a human being. That is if science doesn’t know.
So human beings are basically he says according to current scientific research having three components. Matter, mind and consciousness. And accordingly there are three realms of the cosmos.
There is a material world which we exist in. There is a subtle material world which the higher living beings exist in. And the spiritual world where there is the kingdom of God.
And that is where we belong. So the source of consciousness, the spirit has devolved from that higher level to this lower level. And the real goal of life is to actually evolve not in one bodily form to another but evolve from lower consciousness to higher consciousness.
And that evolution of consciousness takes place by the chanting of the holy names. So he had come to Pune recently. I will show you the PPT about his visit to Pune.
So he gave very nice classes in various colleges in Pune. So the point is that there is scientific refutation for this theory also and the theory will gradually fall back and it will be exposed. And then the scientific nature of Vedic wisdom will also be established.
So I will summarise. So today we started with the idea of chemical evolution being wrong because life at the microscopic level is itself outrageously complex. Bacterial flagella are fully developed machines which are irreducible in complexity.
And then some mutations cause harm, never good. They are like deleting, some accidental deleting of a computer programme. It doesn’t lead to any benefit.
And then we discussed how micro-evolution doesn’t prove micro-evolution. And lastly we discussed how the devotees are in scientific language refuting the theory of evolution and proving the existence of God from the Vedic perspective. Are there any questions? Yes, Roo? She had developed two extra set of Noah misplays somewhat.
See, that is not because of extra genetic information. If you are developing a leg, the information for a leg is there in the gene already. What we require for evolution is that there has to be some new organ that develops.
See, it’s not a new organ, it’s an additional manifestation of the same organ. Legs are already one molecule. Even in humans you have seen some people have six fingers.
That’s because of genetic mutation. So, that is not addition to genetic information. Addition to genetic information will lead to a new organ being formed.
So, the addition of misplays, like intro and outro, we have already seen. Yeah, but, see, when we talk about this is variation within species. See, just because it has six legs, it does not become a cockroach or octopus.
It is still a cow. What evolution requires is one species should change to another species. OK? Does that answer your question? Yes, you had a question? Yeah? Something like that.
It may happen. No, micro or macro? No, it is not. That’s what I had explained in the early evening class, morning class.
That’s why, actually, that evolution theory almost died when the microbiology came up. And then they revived it and called it neo-Darwinism. And then they said that it is happening through mutation.
So, mutation has got nothing to do with natural selection, in one sense. Mutation is entirely at the cellular level. OK? So, what is the question? Is it answered? What I am asking is, preservation of character or traits.
It has happened in the genetic level. In one species or one generation, it got preserved up to some extent. Then it gets transferred or inherited.
No, that doesn’t happen. That doesn’t happen. There is phenotype and there is genotype.
You saw in the PPT, there was a statement of Darwin, where he was telling that this natural selection takes a small… Don’t confuse natural selection with genetic mutation. They are two entirely different mechanisms. Natural selection was what Darwin proposed as the mechanism of evolution.
But when scientists discovered microbiology and they found that inherited characteristics are not passed through physical morphological forms, but they are passed through genes. So, that natural selection idea is as good as dead now. So, now the substitute is genetic mutation.
And so, what scientists say is, one original programme is there and in the variation of that programme is produced all the species. But now, this genetic selection, like natural selection is now dead, but this genetic selection is still going on. No, it’s not going on.
It never happened, so how can it go on? Is anybody understanding this question? You mean, those characters that develop due to this environmental change are not preserved in the genetic level? No, that is not a genetic mutation. Say, for example, if a person’s skin becomes tanned, that is not a genetic mutation. It doesn’t change in the genetic level, only physically it changes.
See, physically, to some extent that happens, a person may do bodybuilding and develop his muscles. Does that mean the genes are changing? No, the genes are not changing when muscles are developed. See, there are certain physical characteristics which can be acquired.
For example, say, if a person overeats and becomes fat, do you think his genes are changing by that? No, the physical characteristics, how they develop is determined by the genes, but we also can vary that a little bit by the way we live. But that doesn’t lead to genetic change. So, we can bring about some, there is genotype and phenotype.
Genotype is the genetic structure, phenotype is the physical structure. So, we can bring about a little structure in phenotype, but a change from phenotype doesn’t carry over to genotype. Yes, Pankaj? See, Archaeopteryx has been debunked by scientists themselves.
What they claim was a fossil for Archaeopteryx, it’s still sometimes there in the textbooks, but it’s actually proven to be not a fossil of any hybrid. They found it is actually a normal bird only. See, what happens is, scientists are also after fame, name and money.
And if somebody can find evidence that nobody else has been able to find, that makes big money. So, Archaeopteryx was also portrayed as a transitional link, but later on they found it was a normal bird. So, if you look at the current research, Archaeopteryx is not portrayed as evidence for evolution.
It’s not a transitional fossil. See, whatever they have found out, subsequent scientists have refuted that. This is what evolution themselves are saying, there is no evidence of any link available.
So, initially, when a new evidence is found, its sensational value is there. The media gives a report that evidence has been found, but later on when the evidence is debunked in a scientific journal, that is not reported in the media. So, we never come to know about it.
But as far as the scientific textbooks that you see, not the textbooks which we learn in schools, but the textbooks which deal with evolution at the PhD level, they say there is no evidence for evolution. See, now, they are asking is there any connection between Archaeopteryx and the species that came to kill Parasit Maharaj. See, sometimes devotees try to derive a simplistic sort of correlation.
Some people say that the first ape man was Hanuman. Now, what does this prove? Are we supporting the theory of evolution? No. There are some people who say, look at the avatars.
First there is Matsya avatar, then there is Kurma avatar, then there is Narasimha, and there is Krishna. This is evolution. See, what happens is, like I told Christians, giving consolation prize to God.
So, like that, somehow some religionists, even Hindus, they try to hook the Hindu idea with evolution and try to gain some credibility. But if you look at Matsya avatar, along with Matsya there was Satyavrat Muni also. There are so many sages.
So, where is the question of evolution? Matsya was not alone. So, what happens, sometimes some devotees try to make some simplistic correlations. So, they found a species which they said that was a transitional link.
Half-man, half-man. So, they gave it the name Ramopithecus. Ramopithecus means Ram’s ape.
And Hindus say, oh, Ram’s name comes in evolution theory. But that evolution theory is rejecting the existence of Ram. So, sometimes that sort of correlation might be given just to attract attention.
But the idea of a snake bird that was there, that doesn’t prove that Archaeopterus existed. And certainly, even if a snake bird is existing, that snake bird is not a transitional link between a snake and a bird. The snakes are existing, birds are existing, snake birds are existing.
And they all come from their ancestors. So, this doesn’t offer any credence to the theory of evolution. Okay? I have a lot of questions.
Okay. Okay, one or two questions we’ll take. Yes, Ajayakumar? Raju, you see that sometimes disorders and some deficiencies come inherited.
Like, three generations before, there’d be no diabetes problem, but somehow people get diabetes and it is passed on and their offsprings are more gullible to diabetes. So, doesn’t it say that there is genetic modification? Prabhuji, that So, what is that called? There are certain diseases that are genetic. There’s congenital disease, that’s okay.
But that doesn’t in any way prove evolution. The existence of congenital deformities is a fact. But what has that got to do with evolution? Prabhuji, you said that physical things that are changes acquired are not resulting in changes in genes.
No. There are two different things now. Say, if a person develops some disease because of which he becomes weak and say, somebody when he is weak he unites and then he begets a child.
That progeny may be physically weak. That is okay. But what we are talking about is addition of genetic information.
Addition of genetic information doesn’t take place. Deterioration can take place but accident can lead to harm. There can be less harm and more harm.
But accident cannot lead to greater strengthening. It’s not that the son of a bodybuilder is from birth a bodybuilder. He may, because his father has eaten a lot of nourishing food and whether it is because of genes or because of the overall nourishment that he has the sperm, whatever it goes through he may be a little physically stronger than others.
But that doesn’t mean that from birth he is a bodybuilder with big muscles, biceps. It doesn’t happen like that. So something might be transmitted.
But generally it is deterioration that is transmitted. The addition of genetic information is not transmitted. Yes, Prabhash.
It depends on what kind of disease it is. It’s possible. Some diseases are inherited.
And some diseases are acquired. So it depends on what kind of disease it is. So the point is, I can do a little bit more research about it.
Maybe in a day or two I will tell you about inherited characters and what exactly happens. What is inherited and what is not inherited. But one thing I am sure that there is no growth in genetic information through inheritance.
That means, it’s not that, like a simple example if I fill my brain with all information on mathematics that doesn’t mean that if a person is a good mathematician his son will be a good mathematician. See that information that is stored in the brain that doesn’t pass on. So accumulation doesn’t pass on.
Let’s stop this question here. And tomorrow or day after I will clarify it in detail about what is carried on and what is not carried on. Yes, Prabhash.
Having deferred this evolution theory, what theory can we accept now? Did the hen came first or the egg? Govindam Adi Purusham Tamaham Bajami So Krishna is Sarvakarana Karanam. He is the cause of all causes. So this is actually, he is a devotee scientist.
He is a disciple of Srila Prabhupada. So he is a member of many scientific organisations.