First off we must analyse the *claims* that the Hindus make while putting this theory forward.
The Dashavatars of Vishnu are -
1 Matsya (the fish)
2 Kurma (the tortoise)
3 Varaha (the boar)
4 Narasimha (half-man half-lion)
5 Vamana (the dwarf)
6 Parashuram (Ram with the axe)
7 Ram (with the bow)
8 Krishna (son of Devaki and Vasudeva)
9 Buddha (the Enlightened One)
10 Kalki (yet to come)
The theory goes (as seen from a Hindu website) -
Lord Vishnu has taken his 1st avatar in water in the form of fish (Matsya avatar), it fulfills Darwin's theory of life evolved in water. 2nd avatar is tortoise (Kurma avatar), it is amphibian, it fulfills Darwin's theory of continuous struggle of fishes to change and adapt to amphibian life. 3rd avatar is boar (Varaha avatar, Pig), it is totally terrestrial animal. Amphibians have struggled continuously to adapt to terrestrial animal. Boar reminds us about the dinosaurs that lived on the earth 1000s of years earlier. 4th avatar is Narasimha avatar, body is human
form, and face and hands are like lion.
We shall analyse the claim one by one.
it fulfills Darwin's theory of life evolved in water.
No - it doesn't. According to Darwin, life started in a 'warm little pond'. New research tells us that life might have started on LAND in pools of condensed steam. Read - https://www.deccanherald.com/content/227119/darwin-right-life-began-land.html
Also, in the Matsya story, the fish explicitly mentions to Manu that *it would be eaten by other fishes if it were left alone in the ocean.*
Read THIS -
Without a doubt by the Ordovician Period, the vertebrate had well and truly formed and was present in many fish. Fish were also diversifying in shape, length and size. However, fish had still not yet developed jaws. Fish lacked a lower jaw. So they couldn’t consume large prey. Instead, they most likely would have fed by sucking water and debris through their mouths from the seabed and releasing the waste and water through their gills.
Did you see? *Early fishes did not have jaws and could not possibly have eaten other fishes.*
Also see this -
The earliest known life-forms are putative fossilized microorganisms, found in hydrothermal vent precipitates, that may have lived as early as 4.28 Gya (billion years ago), relatively soon after the oceans formed 4.41 Gya, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 Gya.
The cycle is - Prokaryotes → Photosynthetic organisms → Eukaryotes → Multicellular organisms → Development of muscles and nerves → Development of brain → First vertebrates → First jawless fish
So to sum up, life probably started in a steam pool on land, with micro-organisms being the first living beings. Even when fishes were formed, they did NOT have jaws to eat other fishes.
Hence the Matsya story is NOT a proper representation of life's start.
The above is enough to debunk the theory, but we'll just dig a bit deeper.
The next two (Kurma and Varaha) are taken to be representative of amphibians and mammals respectively. But this isn't a good example - the first amphibians belonged to the superclass Tetrapoda, most of whom are extinct. Other worms and insects had evolved during this period. Why isn't Kurma a worm?
Same goes for Varaha - The first mammals were the shrew-like morganucodontids, which lived with dinosaurs 210 million years ago. Other early mammals were all small in size. All modern mammals are descendants of these creatures. Why isn't Varaha like them, if he truly represents mammals?
And what about reptiles? Reptiles are TOTALLY skipped in the Dashavatars - when in fact they came BEFORE mammals, about 320 million years ago.
After this, the avatars get even weirder. We have Narsimha, half-man half lion. There is no such creature recorded in scientific knowledge. To say that it represents anything other than one's figment of imagination is absurd.
Then we have Vamana, the dwarf. Early humans were short in size, true, but they were nothing like Vamana. The earliest known human species is Homo habilis, 2.4 million years back.
Then we have Ram, Krishna and Buddha - I do not think they represent any stage in evolution. Was Ram a Neanderthal, or Krishna an Australopithecus? Maybe, since Hindu science is always spot-on. I certainly don't know!
And then we have Kalki, who is yet to come. What will he look like? Superman? Lasers coming out of his eyes? I have no idea. However see this -
Kalki is described in the Puranas as the avatar who rejuvenates existence by ending the darkest and destructive period to remove adharma and ushering in the Satya Yuga, while riding a white horse with a fiery sword.
I mean, who tf uses a sword and rides a horse in these times? 😂😂 If they had said riding a nuclear-armed spaceship, it would've been much cooler. Lol. (After all, space travel and nuclear weapons DO come from Hinduism, don't they?)
And one more thing - If you think that Vishnu has only 10 avatars, you'd be wrong. According to Bhagavata Purana, there are TWENTY-TWO avatars of Vishnu, such as the Kumaras, Narada, Kapila, Rishabha, Prithu, etc. Also Vishnu is supposed to have innumerable avatars, both direct (sakshat) and indirect (Avesa). When you put this into perspective you understand that there's really no way to know which avatar came first or last. Which means that there could well be a hundred avatars between Kurma and Varaha. Or Parshuram and Ram. That's the final nail in the coffin - when you don't know the sequence or the true number, you simply CANNOT claim that it represents evolution.
This myth is officially #Debunked.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment