Gaea

Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Krsna, EVERYBODY'S father, is indeed in Vrndavana - hallowed is His name

Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done,

Nothing happens without His will, not even a blade of grass in the wind can move without Him.

On earth as it is in heaven.

Wow, yes! The material world is a reflection of the spiritual world (only a skewed reflection).

Give us this day our daily bread;

And forgive us our debts,

As we also have forgiven our debtors;

Let us be free of karma?

And lead us not into temptation,

Don't let us be lead away by sense gratification.

But deliver us from evil.

BE OUR SAVIOUR

Now a Scientologists?? Star-trekkie?? I ain't no Spoof with pointy ears.

 

 

 

 

Funny thing Spoof ripped this off from a 60's sci-fi TV show about aliens amongst us here on earth, The Invaders I think. You could only tell them by their hands which were formed like this.

 

Before that it is an ancient Rabbinical sign that signifies the name of God.

 

Continued jokes along this line will get you guys abducted!!! I'm connected. I got juice. So back off.

Haha, just shave off that dodgy hair cut and put a pony tail on it - i KNEW it, all Vulcans are undercover Vaishnavas!

I have heard that certain creatures have not changed at all in hundreds of millions of years.

If evolution was a law of nature, then all creatures would have evolved.

Fossil records show that some creatures are the same now as they were hundreds of millions of years ago.

 

Evolution is process that is driven only when there is a selection pressure. If there is no selection pressure you either get small changes with no disadvantageous phenotype or consistency.

I am not interested in the vedic cosmology myself. One sun in the whole universe?! And Earth just happens to be the closet planet to it in the entire universe. C'mon.

 

I believe our faith should be established in the transcendental knowledge of God found in the SB and not the descriptions of the universe.

Perhaps our translation of the word "unverse" (from the sanskrit) is wrong. Perhaps Vyas was actually referring to the solar system?

then there are laws of evolution and devolution that are both working at the same time.

Impovement of the species is "evolution" and the degrading of the species is devolution.

 

Then the presence of evolution and devolution both, present somewhat of a challenge to the "evolution" theory in that there is another law of devolution that is happening in the world at the same time.

 

The fact that devolution is also happening throws somewhat of a monkey wrench into the evolution theory.

 

Not all species are evolving. some are devolving.

that shows a reverse principle to the evolution concept.

Well it's not really devolution - more of a relaxation of selection pressure. There's no incentive to evolve, so genetic variation that has no apparent disadvantage is allowed to persist.

Or, can there sometimes be a devolution that is confused for evolution?

 

yes that is the case - it is confused. We can see in isolated ecological systems that species have "let down their guards" due to a lack of selection pressure. A good example is flightless birds.

I'm sure you are familiar with the theory of punctuated equilibrium based on extensive studies of living and extinct species groups introduced to explain evolutionary gaps. The idea of phyletic gradualism, which is invoked to justify a lack of gaps, in turn does not explain population biology.

It's great that you have mentioned punctuated equilibrium, which is a theory of no/little genetic change (i.e. no evolution of species). In fact, the current thinking in evolution is a mix of both punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism. In this theory species are constantly undergoing small changes in genomes that have no specific change in phenotype. Slection pressure and other minor changes might cause catastrophic or noticeable phenotypic change (i.e. large jumps). Look on the wikipedia site for scientifc papers thta illustrate this.

No need for such worries. We all accept the Supreme Person as the Original Cause so the rest is just details. Philosophical speculation and debates is a wonderful way for us to have our own beliefs challenged. Often we are reluctant to do that ourselves and I believe it vital that it be done.

 

Problems only arise when we are emotionally attached to our beliefs and become angry and overly defensive when they are challenged.

 

I am not scientifically educated by any stretch so I can't add much but it seems Kulapavana and Shiva are offering plenty of challenges to the predominant paradigm so I get to just read and learn. Cruisin'

Thank you. As ever, i find such a wonderful source of wisdom on this forum through lovely devotees!

Do you accept the idea that this transfer of genes was engineered by an off planet species i.e. "aliens", servants of the Prajapatis?

If so would it be so far fetched to imagine that they have actually seeded life on this planet in all it's manifest forms from the microbes on up to humans? They may have been involved in planning and structuring project Earth Planet for billions of years.

 

I don't know whether Prajapatis or other "aliens" propogated evolutionary explosions but i think it is clear that there is some "mechanism" in place. I have always liked to believe it is divine will, acting through the laws of physics, but i don't think it's so far-fetched that off-world forces are at play. The notion that they may have started this billions of years ago is intriguing - again, no far-fetched in my opinion. Sounds pretty star-trekkie.

adaptation to the environment by slight changes that undeniably exists is hardly the evolution scientists have in mind.

Small changes is exactly what evolution is about. Gradual changes eventually lead to a leap.

some types of bacteria have not changed substantially in well over 1 billion years.

 

Because they don't need to. But you will find MOST bacteria will have changed, especially the ones that have adapted in symbiosis with larger creatures - such as the bacteria in your own gut.

in the last 100 years we have DISCOVERED new bacteria and viruses.

 

yep.

There is zero proof that they APPEARED in the last 100 years. You seriously extrapolate the data to prove your theory, but such extrapolation is not a proof.

 

No, not appear - evolve. By small changes. Just as you build a house brick by brick, in 12 months you'll have a huge house, which was quite different from the original brick.

As to the factor of time: in the laboratory you can simulate extraordinarily long evolutionary mechanisms using fast breeding organisms such as bacteria.

 

That's news to me. You can accelarate the rate of mutation and diversity though - for example, you can expose a bacterial culture to UV light, which increases the chances of mutation.

STILL the same principle holds: you cannot generate substantially new species using the natural mechanisms. 5 years selectively breeding bacteria is the equivalent to millions of years in evolutionary development for much higher organisms, such as mammals.

 

I don't know where you're getting this info from, but it's not as easy as that. Even so, i'll argue the case tho... Plants have an extraordinary genome - they "suffer" from polyploidy and a whole host of genetic diseases and yet they persist and survive. If you expose them to such genotoxicity you will eventually get a situation where two plants cannot mate to produce fertile offspring. By the way, the definition of a species: Two organisms are of the same species if they can mate and produce fertile offspring. You can look up research into the oil-seed rape plant (aribidopsis thaliana) and tobacco plant for info in this area.

yet, in the fossil record we see EXPLOSIONS of diversity within very short periods of time.

 

Wow, yes, this is so true. It brings a tear to eye to think of this wonderful creation and how Krsna has concieved it with but a fraction of His intelligence. He indeed is in the evolutionary driving seat.

actually the evolutionists gave up on the "gradual natural changes" mechanism for evolution long time ago.

No. Stop making stuff up. They have not given up that notion at all. Gradual change is a fundamental concept of evolution.

p.s. i do not intend to tread on devotees beliefs with my comments - i am just putting across my view - so i apologise if i have offended anyone and pray for forgiveness!

Why should I contest evolution, conditions for which were created by Krsna?

 

Hari Bol.

Exactly

<!-- / message -->

 

The “Head-scratching” Discovery

It was here, in tracing the vertical evolutionary record contained in the human and the other analyzed genomes, that the scientists ran into an enigma. The “head-scratching discovery by the public consortium,” as Science termed it, was that the human genome contains 223 genes that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree.

How did Man acquire such a bunch of enigmatic genes?

In the evolutionary progression from bacteria to invertebrates (such as the lineages of yeast, worms, flies or mustard weed – which have been deciphered) to vertebrates (mice, chimpanzees) and finally modern humans, these 223 genes are completely missing in the invertebrate phase. Therefore, the scientists can explain their presence in the human genome by a “rather recent” (in evolutionary time scales) “probable horizontal transfer from bacteria.”

In other words: At a relatively recent time as Evolution goes, modern humans acquired an extra 223 genes not through gradual evolution, not vertically on the Tree of Life, but horizontally, as a sideways insertion of genetic material from bacteria…

Yes, this is the horizontal gene transfer that i was talking about earlier.

I specifically have not spoke about human evolution because that is one point that i personally contest myself.

that may be correct, but I would dispute your bold statement that evolution is a fact. first of all which evolution? you mention bacteria as a proof of this "fact". actually, bacterias can be seen as a proof evolution as the never ending quest for the most resilent life form is a hoax. Bacterias ARE the most resilient form of life - period. there is no need to evolve past bacteria stage as they are the ultimate survivalists. I could go on and on about the follies of typical evolutionary theories but I will just give you one more thing to chew on.

 

modern genetics can be seen as a proof that mechanistic evolution is a hoax. natural breeding, mutations, etc never lead to new forms of life (profoundly different species). it takes CONSCIOUS and EXPERT genetic engineering to generate such forms, as the genetic material needed for such major changes is ABSENT in the initial gene pool.

Yes, it's true bacteria are ultimate survivalists. That does not disprove evolution though - bacteria continually evolve to suit their environment. In the last 100 years we have seen a catalogue of new bcteria and especially viruses that hve evolved to adapt to their human-made surroundings. A good example of this is HIV.

Regarding your view starting "modern genetice..." : the one tenet of evolution that non-proponents of evolution will always attack is the one that is the most difficult to observe - cumulative variation and mutation into a new species (profoundly new, as you say) takes a very very long time. That's why we rely on fossils. But then, again, this will always be attacked and disputed, so there's nothing i could say to convince you. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

On your point of intelligent design: i agree. There is an intelligence driving evolution, i believe. The mechanism, i believe, is evolution by gradual mutation/variational cumulation. Again, that is not inconsistent with Vaishanava belief system.

Today the evolution community claims that evolution (macro evolution i.e one species into another) is achieved through mutation + natural selection. Some evolutionists (like yourself) like to claim that variation in the gene pool somehow has something to do with evolution, unfortunately for them and you they cannot prove it. That claim is like all evolutionary propaganda...nothing more then speculations built upon other speculations, turned into complex theories, and promoted by people with an agenda that blinds them to the truth presented by actual data.

 

I don't like to debate evolution with ardent evolutionists because they are not honest. They are deluded and want to delude others in some bizarre unholy quest. Maybe I've pegged you wrong? I suggest you study some of these writings:

 

http://www.designinference.com/

 

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-10.html

 

I will not respond to you on this topic because frankly it bores me to communicate with evolutionists, what with alll the faux science they like to pretend is real. It's just a waste of time, like arguing with a child about things they do not understand but the child is too egotistic to see the questionable motive and lack of understanding it possesses. I have better things to do with my time.

OK, it's your prerogative whether you would like to discuss this topic with an evolutionist like me but i'll argue the case anyway, seeing as this is a discussion forum.

Today the evolution community claims that evolution (macro evolution i.e one species into another) is achieved through mutation + natural selection.

 

This is what i'm trying to communicate to you - perhaps i'm being podantic - but the way evolution is taught at school and university is that genetic variation (which INCLUDES mutation) and natural selection give rise the phenomenon.

The conclusive proof can be found in bacteria, which undergo horizontal gene transfer (their version of sex). When a colony is exposed to an antobiotic, many bacteria die out because they are not resistant. But then either a mutation or horizontal transfer that results in novel pathways leads to a resistant strain - hence, the population has evolved to become resistant to the antibiotic. We see it in hospitals with the rise of superbugs. We see it in cancer, where tumours become resistant to therapy. And yes, we see it in nature also.

Guys - evolution is a fact, not a theory. I just don't see why you feel so threatened by it. I am happily living my life devoted to God (i hope) and also in complete concordance with science. Why? Coz it's HIS science, not man's (or my) science - He created it, He manipulates it and it is HE who reveals it to us. Everything else is a mystery (and this is where atheists seem to trip over).

Bottom line - there's nothing wrong with accepting evolution because the fact of evolution and the belief in God or Krsna are not mutually exclusive.

What has been termed micro-evolution is diversity within a species. Macroevolution is one species changing into a different species. Calling diversity within a species (variation) any type of "evolution" is an ideological preference (propaganda) because the essence of evolutionary theory i.e. the evolution of species from one into another, has nothing to do with variation within a species.

 

Err, no - What you just said, THAT is propoganda. Evolution of species into other species depends on both mutation and genetic diversity (i.e. a diverse gene pool).

...In reality micro-evolution is a misnomer and nothing more then a use of language for propaganda. Real evolution according to the modern synthesis (Neo-Darwinism) is caused by mutation + natural selection (survival of the fittest). Interbreeding of species is not evolution...

That isn't propoganda. It is called micro-evolution because it is exactly what evolution is about. By the way, evolution isn't just mutation of genes - it is also mixing (i.e. breeding) - this, in effect, is the same as mutation because you bring random alleles together to form "better" phenotypes.

This is covered atheism.

How? They are saying all that there is is God and ONLY God - no second, no jivas. There is only a High Power (not Higher, because there is nothing to be higher against) - or just a Power. This covers Theism, not atheism. It is not even veiled atheism because in atheism there is no Power whatsoever.

well said.

Nevertheless, in the end the impersonalist concludes that he is that impersonal God. If this is not atheism, what else is it?

errr. It's theism. Believing in Brahman and mergence is a bona fide path. It might not be like honey for you, but accroding to spiritual level and karmic consequence, people are brought up in this discipline. When they get as "high" as Personalists, they will see the Dvaitya path. It's natural progression.

yes.

but its not always a warm response

Is there anyone on this forum that can honestly say that they have conjugal feelings for Krishna?

if they did, who would openly say it? the way most people, even devotees, are - they will just get chided - who would believe.

Did you ever notice that all the contestants in the miss universe contests are from earth?

haha, good one

Could I please have the reference? I have visited Bhatkivedanta manor, and would really like to know where this info is from...

Sri Sri Radha Gokulananda ki JAYA!!

i actually read this story right here on this forum a couple of years ago. sorry can't be more specific than that!!

I did not mean I find it haunting in a bad way. I meant it has a real presence to it. Like it's more like looking at a real photograph than just a painting.

oh i see - yes i felt the same way!

So why is it that he gets to prosper while a person engaged in devotional service suffers?

 

It just seems like this should be the other way around. I am by no means disappointed in Krishna. I understand that His will is supreme. I guess i'm looking for some evidence in the shastras that say why this is so.

 

-Hare Krishna

Look at it this way - if you are suffering in your material life like you have described, does it not make you think of Krsna even more? Say you were successful, are you definately sure that you will remember Him as much as you remember Him when suffering? In this way Krsna slowly takes away your material life to increase your attachemnt to Him. Just like how he took away Narada's mother (when he was in a previous body) so that he could engage in devotional service.

And even if this is not good enough, then try and try again. Don't give up. With faith you'll get far on the devotional path but for material life, you must constantly engage in continuous action to be successful.

Good luck!