How good is the Theory of Evolution?
I would like to reexamine our knowledge about evolution, in the background of the latest knowledge we have about our existence, around reincarnation. Ian Stevenson was a Canadian-American psychiatrist who served as the Director of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia. Stevenson became famous for his research into cases suggestive of reincarnation — the idea that the soul, emotions, memories can be passed on from one reincarnation to another. His research position after studying and documenting around 3000 cases, was that certain phobias, philias, unusual abilities and illnesses cannot be fully explained by genetics or the environment, and reincarnation might be the third contributing factor.
During a discussion about Charles Darwin’s theory of Evolution and how it has been accepted as mainstream science, I was really curious if people really believed whether say, whales and sharks shared a common ancestor. A friend immediately corrected me saying since whales were mammalian, their ancestors had to be mammals, who were on land. A quick research shows me that the widely accepted ancestor of the whale is named ‘Pakicetus’, which is an animal believed to be living 50 Million years ago, dated based on fossil records found in the river deltas of present day Pakistan. Pakicetus looked like a wolf with a big snout, as visualized in the drawing below. Pakicetus apparently had webbed feet and was comfortable on land as well as water.
To me, there is a lot of creative storytelling in this world of evolution. Making a hypothesis of a animal that existed 50 Million years ago, and claiming it to be the ancestor of the whale, sounds very fantastic to me. It sounds like fantasy to me that the Pakicetus then chose to spend most of its time in water and started losing its value for having feet. And, then within its lifespan, it was able to reproduce in water, and eventually the offspring started looking like whales. All of these could certainly be possible, but there is a strong element of creativity and fantasy in this explanation.
It is puzzling as to how such hypothesis have come to be accepted as a fundamental basis for mainstream science. While I agree that Darwin’s explorations and proposals does add significant value to 19th century science, it is still ridiculous for it to be accepted without questioning, and to be taught to children in schools as the absolute truth.
What hurts is that, this prevents us from seeking better answers to questions about our existence, and our history!
