Vedic mythology collobarate with science?

[tipsy_munchkin 90]

Daśāvatāras and evolution

The British geneticist and evolutionary biologist J B S Haldane observed that the Dasavataras (ten principal avatars of Lord Vishnu) provide a true sequential depiction of the great unfolding of evolution. The avatars of Vishnu show an uncanny similarity to the biological theory of evolution of life on earth.^{[39][not in citation given]} Avatars Explanation Evolution Matsya. First avatar is a fish, one which is creature living in water. If we compare it with biological evolution on different Geological Time Scale first developed life was also in the form of fish which originated duringCambrian period. Kurma Second avatar was in the form of Tortoise (reptiles). In geology also first reptiles comes as second important evolution which originated in Mississippian period just after Amphibians. Varaha Third avatar was in the form of Boar. Evolution of the amphibian to the land animal. Narasimha The Man-Lion (Nara= man, simha=lion) was the fourth avatar. But in geology no such evidences are mentioned. It may have been related with Ape Man The term may sometimes refer to extinct early human ancestors. Vamana Fifth Avatar is the dwarf man. It may be related with the first man originated during Pliocene. It may be related with Neanderthals. Neanderthals were generally only 12 to 14 cm (4½–5½ in) shorter than modern humans, contrary to a common view of them as "very short" or "just over 5 feet". Parashurama, The man with an axe was the sixth avatar. It has the similarities with the first modern man originated during Quaternary period or the man of Iron Age.

Lord Rama, Lord Krishna and Lord Buddha were the seventh, eighth and ninth other avatars of Lord Vishnu. It indicates the physical and mental changes and evolution in the man from its time of appearance.

http://en.wikipedia....istic_evolution

For me this is a perfect example of projecting a modern view onto ancient thought. I don't find the argument they represent the process of evolution convincing.

[Harsh86_Patel 112]

For me this is a perfect example of projecting a modern view onto ancient thought. I don't find the argument they represent the process of evolution convincing.

Ok.

You can deny the similarity but i guess it will be an act of biased denial rather then an open minded comparison.

It can also be an example of an Ancient thought projected in a modern view.

But JBS Haldane was a pioneer geneticist and a evolutionary biologist born in Britain and he was one of the first to point out the similarity.Probably he was projecting a modern view on to ancient thought for no good reason or probably he did see and acknowledge and bring to notice the clearly visible similarity.

John Burdon Sanderson Haldane FRS (5 November 1892 – 1 December 1964^[1]), known as Jack (but who used 'J.B.S.' in his printed works), was a British-borngeneticist and evolutionary biologist generally credited with a central role in the development of neo-Darwinian thinking (popularized by Richard Dawkins' 1976 work titled The Selfish Gene). A staunch Marxist, he was critical of Britain's role in the Suez Crisis, and chose to leave Britain, move to India and become an Indian citizen. He was also one of the founders (along with Ronald Fisher and Sewall Wright) of population genetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_B_S_Haldane

[Harte 10,346]

"Rest of us" cant you stand on your own and let the others come and support you as they would.Speak for yourself when passing your flimsy judgements."Rest of us" know that you are trying to raise non-issues and not contributing coherently to the topic.

Sorry, but no. Most of "the rest of us" are simply very tired of your willful ignorance.

Ignorance is no sin, but your wallowing in it for your own pleasure is really not something the "rest of us" find any interest in.

As one of "the rest of us," I'm right on the verge of putting you on ignore so I don't have to wade through line after line of utter twaddle to find cogent responses such as those provided by Cormac. But, don't worry. If you end up on my ignore list, you'll be keeping company with some of the greatest purveyors of total crapola that this site has ever seen, many of them either far more ignorant than you, or far more adept at mischaracterizing facts.

Harte

[Harsh86_Patel 112]

Sorry, but no. Most of "the rest of us" are simply very tired of your willful ignorance.

Ignorance is no sin, but your wallowing in it for your own pleasure is really not something the "rest of us" find any interest in.

As one of "the rest of us," I'm right on the verge of putting you on ignore so I don't have to wade through line after line of utter twaddle to find cogent responses such as those provided by Cormac. But, don't worry. If you end up on my ignore list, you'll be keeping company with some of the greatest purveyors of total crapola that this site has ever seen, many of them either far more ignorant than you, or far more adept at mischaracterizing facts.

Harte

Expected some better crticism from you Harte.Can you please put forward objective criticism of what i have posted other then vicious denial and comments on my personality.I can understand if you are trying to stand up for your friend but other then that i can't understand this comment.Ignoring me will be a defeatist attitude,i would prefer if you point out any fallacies in the information i have posted rather then mere labels for me and the content and the best way to ignore a topic would be in my opinion "to not comment".But then again the only motive i can zero on for the above comment from you is "you wan't to stand up for your friend".

BTW- i am on many peoples ignore list,especially the one's that i have proved wrong or those who are too egotistical/emotional to be objective.

yours truely,

Harsh

[Harsh86_Patel 112]

That's exactly why you can't state that Indo-Aryans are the oldest surviving culture in the world. There are no traces if Indo-Aryans before 2000 BCE, while there is a continuous and unbroken Aboriginal culture that goes back tens of thousands of years.

And as I've said, there are the Sentinelese people on the Andaman Islands, who have probably been living there since the Middle Palaeolithic with little or no cultural change. (They are an uncontacted people, so we can't be 100% sure, but it seems they haven't even invented fire)

And about "Vedic Science", with enough hindsight, you can read great discoveries into anything.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Genes-link-Australia-with-India-Indians-broke-Australian-isolation-study-says/articleshow/18029070.cms

SYDNEY: People from the Indian sub-continent migrated to Australia and mixed with Aborigines 4,000 years ago, bringing the dingo dog with them, according to a study published on Tuesday.

The continent was thought to have been isolated from other populations until Europeans landed at the end of the 1700s.

But researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, reported "evidence of substantial gene flow between Indian populations and Australia about 4,000 years ago".

They analysed genetic variation from across the genome from Australian Aborigines, New Guineans, Southeast Asians, and Indians.

"Long before Europeans settled in Australia humans had migrated from the Indian subcontinent to Australia and mixed with Australian Aborigines," the study said.

It found "substantial gene flow from India to Australia 4,230 years ago ie... well before European contact," it said.

"Interestingly," said researcher Irina Pugach, "this date also coincides with many changes in the archaeological record of Australia, which include a sudden change in plant processing and stone tool technologies... and the first appearance of the dingo in the fossil record.

"Since we detect inflow of genes from India into Australia at around the same time, it is likely that these changes were related to this migration," she said.

A common origin was also discovered for the Australian, New Guinean and Philippine Mamanwa populations who had followed a southern migration route out of Africa begun more than 40,000 years ago.

The researchers estimate the groups split about 36,000 years ago.

Australia offers some of the earliest archaeological evidence for the presence of humans outside Africa, with sites dated to at least 45,000 years ago.

'Seems like Out Of India is gaining momentum'

[TheSearcher 313]

.....Snip

'Seems like Out Of India is gaining momentum'

No it isn't, read your own article again.

It found "substantial gene flow from India to Australia 4,230 years ago ie... well before European contact," it said.

..........

A common origin was also discovered for the Australian, New Guinean and Philippine Mamanwa populations who had followed a southern migration route out of Africa begun more than 40,000 years ago.

The researchers estimate the groups split about 36,000 years ago.

Australia offers some of the earliest archaeological evidence for the presence of humans outside Africa, with sites dated to at least 45,000 years ago.

It says there was some influence 4000 years ago, granted, but the main migration happened between 30,000 and 45,000 years ago from Africa.

The Out Of India Theory is controversial at best and far from being proven at all. Several points go right against the grain of this theory.

- The linguistic center of gravity principle states that a language family's most likely point of origin is in the area of its greatest diversity. Only one branch of Indo-European, Indo-Aryan, is found in India, whereas the Italic, Venetic, Illyrian, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Thracian, and Greek branches of Indo-European are all found in Central-Eastern Europe.

- The Indic languages show the influence of the Dravidian and Munda language families. If the Indo-European origin had been located in India, then it stands to reason that the Indo-European languages should have shown some influence from Dravidian and Munda, yet no other branch of Indo-European does.

- To postulate the migration of PIE speakers out of India necessitates an earlier dating of the Rigveda than is normally accepted by Vedic scholars, meaning you need to adapt established facts to make it work. That's usually a rather bad sign right there.