How life began and evolutionary theory

41

Ok, but as I mentioned when I was in highschool ( a long time ago) we were told that life began due to the mixing of chemicals a la Miller-Urey. If science has moved on from that idea

it doesn’t follow that scientists now have the true picture of the world.

edit: At school we were given examples of evolution such as the peppered moth which of course does provide evidence of natural selection. Or there are clear adaptations in bacterial systems which make them more or less virulent.
However, scientists extrapolate these types of evidence way beyond such simple examples.

42

Correct, not on everything, that’s for sure. Neil deGrasse Tyson has said that the science is still out, still researching for the exact origins of life and doesn’t conclusively know much in that regard yet. And this of course leaves the door wide open for a religious explanation.

Biological evolution, however, is different. There is much evidence for that. Many dog and cat breeds that we have today didn’t even exist some 300 to 500 years ago. They were developed by selective breeding. In most cases changes in the gene pool cannot be seen for a very long time, well beyond the years that a typical human lives, but yes in animals it’s easier to see since they have much shorter lives and we can see changes quicker. But there is still the fossil records that can be examined and they show the results of evolution that occurred millions of years ago, in animals and humans.

43

For example, the Dobermann is a breed that was developed as recently as 1890. Their look didn’t even exist before that. It was through selective breeding that this breed was “made.” It’s the same dog species of course, but shows an example we can see in a very short amount of time what selective breeding can do. Farmers have done selective breeding too, to acquire larger bulls and cows that produce more milk.

44

Yes well. I think the evidence of evolution is pretty overwhelming. But that does not mean humans evolved from early primates. Scientists are rightfully concluding that that was the case based on the available evidence. But that doesn’t mean it’s indisputably right.

It was right for scientists to conclude the sun was made of coal b4 they knew about nuclear fusion. That was wrong.

Let’s use another example. The evidence for gravity is immense. Indisputable. Just like evolution is. That does not mean that everything in the universe moves based on gravity.

In fact the stars do not actually move in the way they are supposed to based on the laws of gravity. Scientists try to explain this using a hypothetical dark matter that we can’t see but has gravity. But there is no evidence this dark matter exists or is even matter. It’s just the best explanation they have based on their current body of scientific knowledge. That doesn’t mean it’s true. In fact. The Buddha says it’s false. He explains that the stars are moved by devas. That’s why they don’t actually move the way they’re supposed to based on the laws of gravity, not because gravity isn’t real or because of this imaginary dark matter.

In the same way. The evidence of evolution is very strong. It’s almost certainly how most animals came to be how they are over the ages. like with dark matter, scientists try to explain the existence of humans by fitting it into the mold of evolution because that’s all they know based on the current body of evidence and it’s the best explanation based on current scientific evidence. That doesn’t mean that’s the case. In fact the Buddha was clear that humans devolved from brahmas, that doesn’t mean the evolution of everything else is wrong. It just means scientists made a mistake to extrapolate that it also includes humans. It was just the best explanation they had.

45

Yes microevolution is proven and known and no one debates that as far as I know.
It is the belief that all life developed from a common ancestor, a LUKA, via natural selection that has some question marks about it.

46

It is probably worthwhile considering the Commentary to the Agganna sutta:
Translation with help from chatgpt

Iti "bhagavā ettakena kathāmaggena pāṭihāriyaṃ na karotī"ti padassa anusandhiṃ dassetvā idāni "na aggaññaṃ paññāpetī"ti imassa anusandhiṃ dassento
aggaññañcāhanti desanaṃ ārabhi.

Thus, after explaining that “the Blessed One does not perform miracles merely through words,” the connection to the phrase “He does not declare Aggañña (the origin of the world) in that way” is clarified. The Buddha then begins the discourse with the statement: “I also know Aggañña.”

Tattha aggaññañcāhanti ahaṃ, bhaggava, aggaññañca pajānāmi lokuppatticariyavaṃsañca.

In this context, when the Buddha says, “I also know Aggañña,” he is addressing Bhaggava, stating: “O Bhaggava, I know the true knowledge of Aggañña (the highest origin) as well as the historical account of the world’s formation.”

the Tika:

Imassa padassa. Idaṃ nāma lokassa agganti jānitabbaṃ, taṃ aggaññaṃ, so pana lokassa uppattikkamo pavatti paveṇī cāti āha 'lokuppatticariyavaṃsa’nti."

"Of this term: ‘This is what is to be known as the highest of the world, that is Aggañña.’ However, it refers to the origination, development, and lineage of the world; therefore, it is called ‘The history of the world’s origin’.

Sammāsambodhito uttaritaraṃ nāma kiñci natthi pajānitabbesu, taṃ pana koṭiṃ katvā dassento 'yāva sabbaññutaññāṇā pajānāmī’ti āha."

“There is nothing beyond perfect enlightenment that is to be known. Indicating this as the final limit, (the Buddha) said: ‘Up to omniscience, I know’.”

The tika stresses that this knowledge of the origination is due to his attainment of sammasambodhi - full attainment of a Buddha and with it sabbannutanna - omniscience (literally -all knowing).

47

What would a figurative interpretation even look like?

48

But couldn’t macroevolution simply be the result of millions or billions of microevolutions occurring over many years (thousands, millions, or even billions)? This must be why, in some cases, it is not possible to observe intermediate fossils or a link between two species. I don’t know if I’m being clear, but I like to think about this and compare it to our own aging process. I know it’s a very simplistic example, but I think it’s valid. You are now completely different from when you were a baby, yet the changes throughout your life have been imperceptible day by day.

49

The Agganna Sutta seen figuratively (not literally) describes simple beings craving for food and becoming more complex, craving to procreate.

This is no different than what evolution shows. Simple unicellular organisms multiplied and grew and craving made them larger and more complex.

50

Species share common ancestors. A chimpanzee does not “become” a human over time; we simply share common ancestors. The missing links idea was debunked long ago by scientists. Fossil records show numerous species sharing similar traits between our nearest ape like relatives and us, but they do not “become” us over time.

1 Like
51

It does mean that. This is why we are roughly 98% related to Chimpanzees yet roughly 30% related to Daffodils. Our last common ancestor is closer to chimpanzees than daffodils. You mentioned earlier there are no transitional links between humans and chimps, but we know loads.

IMG_0523
IMG_05231320×1002 219 KB

You can’t say evolution works for everything else, but humans are special. That makes no sense.

You also mentioned Hoyle earlier. Hoyle was criticising abiogenesis not evolution. He preferred the theory of life arriving by asteroids. Creationists adopted his argument, but it’s a fallacy. We aren’t talking about an extremely improbable event, like a tornado constructing a plane in a junk yard. Rather we are talking about innumerable likely events, of mutations selected for through survival (or sex), mutations which accumulate overtime. These aren’t extremely rare events.

Evolution via natural selection is how we physically got humans. If you have a belief which contradicts that then, sorry to say, you are delusional.

52

There is no distinction between “micro and macro” evolution. This is an invention of Creationists. There is only Evolution. The process that drives anti-microbial resistance in Bacteria is the same process that gives us Humans, Chimpanzees, Dinosaurs etc.

53

Evolution doesn’t have a direction as such. A lot of people think we are the pinnacle of it, that it was all leading to us, but that’s just egotistical nonsense. We aren’t the pinnacle of it. It never “had us in mind”.

1 Like
54

No it doesn’t. It’s logical to think that. But that doesn’t mean that is the case. The pyramids of Egypt are 80% similar to the the incan pyramids. That doesn’t mean one influenced the other. Also. All life has DNA and the only life we know of is on earth. If aliens came to earth and mostly looked like us, they’re DNA would be closer to us than chimpanzees. That doesn’t mean we came from aliens or they came from us. Even ppl who have doppelgangers usually have DNA pretty close to each other since their traits are similar. Even if they are not related.

It’s the same argument as dark matter. The stars don’t move in accordance with gravity. So ppl assume that must mean there is dark matter with gravity to explain that. But that isn’t necessarily the case.

55

Sorry but that’s a really terrible group of analogies, and they show that you don’t really understand the subject matter at hand. I’ll get into why later.

57

We are in the Class of mammals; Order of Primates, not monkey but a type of ape.

Correct, this is my understanding as well.

Scientific classificationEdit this classification15x15
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

1 Like
58

Okay. I’m waiting.

60

Right, that is what evolutionary theory says:

Richard Dawkins: Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection, although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of evolution

Stephen Jay Gould: “Replay the tape a million times… and I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again,” in Wonderful Life.

Richard Dawkins: it is absurd [for humans] to regard [ourselves] as more special [than other creatures]; we are the product of a blind evolutionary process that had no foresight”

Kevin Laland – Darwin’s Unfinished Symphony (2017)
"We humans like to see direction in everything, but evolution operates without a script. The emergence of intelligence, language, and culture was contingent, not inevitable.

Sean B. Carroll – The Serengeti Rules (2016)
"There is no evolutionary rule that says species must become more complex over time, or that intelligence is an inevitable outcome. The idea that evolution strives for progress is a deeply misleading myth.

Francisco J. Ayala – Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion (2007)
“Evolution is not predictable or deterministic beyond small-scale adaptations. Large-scale evolutionary outcomes are the result of historical contingencies.”

Thus humans were an unlikely outcome according to evolutionary theory.

However, humans are considered a fundamental order of beings in the Dhamma ,so there is surely discord between the scientific ideas and the Buddha’s teachings?

61

here is the relevant section from the Digha Nikaya 27 (Agganna sutta) Walshe translation

Aggañña Sutta – The Origin of the World

10. "There comes a time, Vāseṭṭha, when, sooner or later, after a long period, this world contracts. At a time of contraction, beings are mostly reborn in the Ābhassara Brahma world. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, and glorious. They remain in this state for a very long time.

"But sooner or later, after a very long period, this world begins to expand again. When this happens, the beings from the Ābhassara Brahma world, having passed away from there, are mostly reborn in this world. Here too, they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, and glorious—remaining like that for a very long time.

11. "At that period, Vāseṭṭha, the world was covered by a single mass of water, shrouded in blinding darkness. There was no moon or sun, no constellations or stars, no distinction of night and day, no months and fortnights, no years or seasons, and no male or female—beings were simply called ‘beings.’

"Sooner or later, after a very long period, a savory earth spread itself over the waters where those beings were. It looked just like the skin that forms on hot milk as it cools. It had color, smell, and taste—resembling fine ghee or butter, and it was very sweet, like pure wild honey.

12. "Then, one being of a greedy nature thought: ‘What is this?’ and tasted the savory earth with a finger. In doing so, it became captivated by the flavor, and craving arose within it. Seeing this, other beings followed suit, also tasting the earth with their fingers. They too became enchanted by the taste, and craving arose in them.

"As a result, they began breaking off pieces with their hands to eat. Over time, due to their indulgence, their self-luminance disappeared. With the disappearance of their radiance, the moon and sun appeared, night and day became distinct, and months, fortnights, years, and seasons came into existence. To that extent, the world re-evolved.

13. "For a very long time, these beings feasted on the savory earth, growing nourished by it. As they continued eating, their bodies became coarser, and differences in appearance emerged among them. Some became good-looking, while others became unattractive. The good-looking ones began to despise the others, saying:

‘We are better-looking than they are.’

"Because of their arrogance and conceit over their appearance, the savory earth disappeared. Lamenting its loss, they cried:

‘Oh, that flavor! Oh, that flavor!’

"This is why, even today, when people taste something delicious and exclaim, ‘Oh, that flavor!’ they are unknowingly repeating an ancient saying.

14. "With the disappearance of the savory earth, a type of fungus cropped up, resembling mushrooms. It had good color, fragrance, and taste—like fine ghee or butter, and very sweet, like pure wild honey. The beings set to eating this fungus, and it lasted for a long time.

"But as they continued feeding on it, their bodies became even coarser, and their differences in appearance became more pronounced. The good-looking ones began to despise the others once again. Because of their arrogance, the sweet fungus disappeared.

"Next, creepers appeared, shooting up like bamboo, also sweet like wild honey.

15. "The beings fed on these creepers, and as they did so, their bodies became even coarser, and their differences in appearance increased further. Once more, arrogance arose, and the creepers disappeared. Lamenting their loss, they cried:
‘Alas, our creeper is gone! What have we lost?’

"This is why, even today, when people lament their losses, saying, ‘Oh, what have we lost!’ they are repeating an ancient saying.

16. "Then, after the creepers had disappeared, rice appeared in open fields, free from husks and powder—fragrant and clean-grained. Whatever was taken in the evening for supper would have grown back and ripened by morning. Whatever was taken in the morning for breakfast would be ripe again by evening, with no need for reaping.

"The beings fed on this rice, and this continued for a very long time. But as they ate, their bodies became coarser still, and their differences in appearance became even greater.

"Soon, female and male organs developed. The women became preoccupied with the men, and the men with the women. Because of their excessive attachment, passion was aroused, and their bodies burned with lust.

==================

and in the preceding sutta
Dīgha Nikāya 26 (Cakkavatti-Sīhanāda Sutta)
the Buddha recounts the decline of life spans of humans - from 80,000 years down to 10 years in the future. At this time humans live only around a hundred years- very, very short lived indeed.

62

That is a rather innovative take. While i do think your take is somewhat reasonable as an intricate metaphor that was easier for ancient pre-scientific age Indians to understand, i will certainly be laughing the next time someone tries to tell me its indisputable that the Buddha taught there is no self. Given that the mental gymnastics required to interpret anatta as still being compatible with a self is like a children’s gymnastics class compared to the Olympian style mental gymnastics required to make the agganna sutta an allegory for evolution.