Evolution of Humans: Developed world and Developing world

evolution1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recently a British genetics expert, Steve Jones stated that humans in developed world have stopped evolving, because people there in western countries need not struggle for there survival and the famous theory of Darvin “survival for the fittest” doesn’t come into picture. And he didn’t miss saying that the evolution hasn’t stopped in the developing world, because people there have to struggle for survival.

 

I am no expert in the evolution theory of genetics, nor have I studied biology beyond matriculation, nor I want to challenge the British expert because I am not qualified enough, but I cant suppress something in me which tend to disagree.

 

This seems to be a loose statement and I differ and would like to raise some points

 

He says that humans in developing countries stopped evolving because they need to struggle for survival. Well, I feel this is a very sweeping statement, as not all people in developing countries struggle to survive, many of the people live as lavish life as people in developed countries. So does that mean that in developing countries too some people have stopped evolving? Evolution takes a vast time frame, even for a minor change thousands of years pass. And I don’t think it takes anything more than a century for backward countries to develop, so as per the theory of Mr Steve, nowadays peole of developing countries are subject to evolution and after hundred years they will again stop evolving? It seems Mr Steve has assumed that all backward countries will remain backward in next thousand years.

Or can anyone say it for sure that all people in developed countries need not struggle for survival.

 

Even if I view it from another point of view, and forget about developed and backward countries as mentioned by Mr Steve, can it be assumed that anyone irrespective of country he lives in, if lives in extreme poverty, then his further generations would also live in extreme poverty so that evolution could take place?

I think evolution theory is not same for humans and animals, as animals can not change their life at their will, they will live in jungle, struggle for survival and in the process, will evolve. But in case of humans, as they have got the ability of change their life due to highly developed mind, their process of evolution should be different. Suppose someone lives in extreme poverty and need to struggle for survival, so is his next generation, so next to next generation, but it’s not guaranteed that his 100 generations will live for sure in extreme conditions for evolution to come into picture. In fact it’s very likey that his next generations live in much better conditions.  

 

One more fault (at least I think so) in Mr Steve’s theory is that he has assumed that if conditions so come, people in developed world will not evolve, and also there wont be any crisis which would call for further evolution of humans.

 

Evolution takes place in a very vast time frame, but nature has made it sure that even in a very short time frame further generations of living beings may be born with somewhat better profile, by making two sexes in almost all of living beings.

All the species happen to have a tendency to extend their population and two sexes can help the newborn inheriting better of two. This is a natural refinement process of the living beings, but unfortunately we humans waste it because in our civilization marriage is supposed to happen only between equals.

 

Gods of Hindus and the Song of “Lagaan”

 

ram1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

There is a song in Hindi film “Lagaan”, rendering worship to the God by a group of poor villagers

 

The song goes like that

 

“O Palanhare, Nirgun aur Nyare, tumhre bin hamra koi nahin”

 

The above song sounds nice as a prayer by villagers to the God to save them in the cricket match against the English, for which their future was at stake.

Everything in this song is fine but the word “Nirgun”.

 

The Hindi/Sanskrit word “Nirgun” means one who has not any particular appearance or particular identity. The words “Nirgun” and “Nirakar” in Hindi are used mainly to define the Gods in Islam or Christianity, where God is assumed in not any particular shape or appearance. In these religions “Murti Puja” (worshipping the idols of God) is not done, they don’t believe in multiple Gods and believe only in one almighty God without assuming any appearance.

 

But in Hinduism God is not “Nirgun”. We have assumed Gods and their apperance, we make idols of Gods put it in front and worship. 

 

Hinduism is perhaps only religion in the world, which has no founder, which was never founded, and practice of Hinduism is mainly in India and Nepal. It developed and flourished by itself. The practices of the religion like festivals or rituals are not firm and vary with the regions in India. But,the “Murti Puja”  remains common everywhere, in any part of India, Nepal or world. I firmly believe that “Murti Puja” is the most distinguishing feature of Hinduism. Our Gods are “Sagun” and not “Nirgun”.

 

 I have high regards for lyricist and writer Javed Akhtar, one of the finest writers in Bollywood, but am slightly surprised by this blunder mistake in one of his songs. Also interestingly I have never heard anyone objecting to this. I object to this because this is misrepresentation of the very concept of Hinduism.