There are examples of different species combine together totally new species are formed, couldn’t evolution have occurred in this way?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Question, there are examples of different species combined together and forming new species.
Wouldn’t this be the way evolution may have occurred? Answer, this is like giving the example of one red brick in the debris of a massive chasm and saying that the whole chasm must have been made of red bricks. What it means is that the conclusion is massive extrapolation from the evidence. So actually to understand why this is so is we have to understand the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
Micro-evolution is change within species. Macro-evolution is change across species, change from one species to another. So, all that has been observed whether in nature in itself or even by the best efforts at cross-breeding by human beings is macro, is micro-evolution.
What this means is that there is change within the species. For example, we know that there is variation within the species naturally also. Among dogs, there is overman, there is ginger, there is animals.
So, there are different kinds of dogs. So, a small, big, fierce, gentle, but they are all ultimately dogs. So, there are variations within the species.
Now, biologists may say that we have combined, that these two species have combined over here and a new species has been formed. Now, the point is that the body characteristics of the species do come from their genetic DNA. This is just the way nature is constituted.
So, if by some artificial means we combine a toyota, a tiger, and a lion, we might get a new kind of what seems to be a new kind of species called a liger. So, now if you look at what has actually been created, there are several limitations to that. Among the many limitations is that this is not something that has been, that has happened by natural selection.
There is something which has been consciously done by human human organization. Human systematic efforts, plan, effort, plan and arrangement. So, to say that this is, so what has been done by human beings after great effort in conscious planning, to say that natural selection, which actually doesn’t have an intelligence, which doesn’t have an intention, which doesn’t have a plan, natural selection works randomly, blindly.
And that’s why, that is something which even literature documents, which has been seen, which has been expressed, by saying that all natural selection is a blind watchmaker. So, actually natural selection doesn’t have a plan, a purpose, intelligence or intention. So, that’s why these kind of changes to happen by themselves in nature is extremely unlikely.
And secondly, and more importantly, even if these changes occur, do they comprise examples of macroevolution? So, when we talk about 8.4 million species being there, this is primarily based on consciousness. It is not based on biological form. So, from the point of view of modern science, which classifies species primarily based on biological form, we might say that a new species has emerged.
But from the point of view of the Vedic scriptures, the species is classified according to 8.4 million, according to consciousness. it’s not that a new species has emerged. It is simply that because the bodily dresses create, using the genetic gene from two parent genes.
And those parent genes were of different genetic genes. Therefore, the bodily dress that resulted was of a particular combination. It’s as simple as if there is a red sweater and there is a blue sweater, and we take the threads from both, and we combine them and make a sweater, the resulting sweater will be red-blue, made of a red-blue combination.
So, what does this indicate? This doesn’t indicate that anything miraculous has happened. All that it indicates is that there has been a combination of the threads, and that’s how a new seeming dress has come about. The bodily attention-like dresses, and these dresses are produced by such mechanisms.
So, modern science calls them genes. The genetic genes are the mechanism, and behind them the mechanism is current. So, why are certain people good-looking and certain people not good-looking? People say it’s because of their genes, but why the genes of certain people behave in particular ways, and why their particular genes act in some other ways, that is not something which can be explained only in terms of genes.
That requires another explanation, and that is the explanation of karma. So, there are monozygotic twins who have the same genetic pool entirely, because they actually come from the same embryo. Same egg has got split into two.
So, in that case, the entire genetic pool is the same. Still, of the monozygotic twins have different characteristics. The point which I’m making through this is that the genes determine the bodily dress, but they don’t determine the personality, they don’t determine the psychological and spiritual aspects of the person.
So, physical nature, it will work according to certain mechanisms, and when there is cross-breeding, then the product will likely to contain traces from both. So, now, even if such things happen, after a lot of effort from human beings under supervision, what end result it proves is that actually in practice, after long effort, some kind of cross-breeding can happen, but this kind of cross-breeding doesn’t comprise evidence for macroevolution. Macroevolution is change from one species entirely to another species.
Lions and tigers belong basically to the same family, in the sense that they belong to the same kind of beings, and cross-breeding between them, though not so natural, is not impossible. But, to go from algae all the way to amoeba, from amoeba all the way to elephants and humans, actually, to extrapolate from just the cross-breeding within species, which is also done under conscious supervision and great meticulous orientation, to extrapolate from that and say that by blind natural selection, an algae and amoeba would eventually become a human being, is a massive, massive leap of faith, that is not at all substantiated by the evidence. So micro-evolution is something which just reflects the dynamism of nature.
Lord Krishna says, शुये तेश चराचरम्, जगद भी परिवर्त थे, जगद भी परिवर्त थे, means the world is constantly changing, nature is dynamic, and micro-evolution reflects the dynamism of material nature. But, micro-evolution is something which has never been observed, never been documented, never been theoretically explained also, never been observed, never been documented means fossil record doesn’t support it, never been theoretically explained, there is no mechanism by which it can happen. That’s why this does not comprise an adequate evidence for evolution.
As I mentioned elsewhere, theory of evolution talks about survival of the fittest, but actually if put to the test of scientific scrutiny, theory itself is not fit enough to survive.