Human Evolution

Vjkk Vjkf, Does Sikhi Believe in Human Evolution?? Vjkk Vjkf

From Gurbanee we learn about the whole system of creation of the universe. We learn about
the classification into four specific ZONES being refered as FOUR KHANEES.
The whole creation of the System of four Zones is created by the interaction of different
types of Waves.
Ultimately all the forms stated to be 84 lacs are result of this interaction.So there is every
possibilty of transformation from one form to another.And this cycle is refered as Cycle of 84
lac Joones.
Human form is also a result of this transformation and this form is considered as the highest and
as close to as the Creator itself.

So there is definitely a message of evolution of Human Form in Gurbanee.

Bhul chuk maaf

Daas

Prakash.S.Bagga

The evolution theory as invented by Charles Darwin and as propagated by science today is not in accordance with Gurmat. Gurmat believes in the evolution or devolution of the Jeev-Aatma depending on its Karma but the life-forms or the species don't evolve into something else. Gurbani says that the whole creation has 8.4 million life forms (life forms or Joonis are not same as species) and this has been the truth from the beginning. At any given time there have been 8.4 million life forms. If we believe that one life form evolves to another, then there would be an additional life-form thereby violating the Gurmat principle that states that there are fixed 8.4 million life forms.

These Chaurasi Lakh life forms not all active at any given time. Some are dormant and some are active but all are existent at any given time.

Gurmat does not promote the idea that humans have evolved from Baandars (monkeys). Jo kichh paaiya so ika Vaar.

The kids brought up in Western countries have become Mutaasir (influenced) by the modern education that promotes such anti Gurmat notions like evolution and homosexuality etc. Guru Sahib Kirpa karan.

Kulbir Singh

Gurmat does not promote the idea that humans have evolved from Baandars (monkeys). Jo kichh paaiya so ika Vaar

This is true.What we learn from Gurbanee relates to TRANSMIGARTION from one form to another rather than
Evolution as envisaged by Darvins theory of Evolution.

From Gurbanee it is equally important to understand the view about the CREATOR itself. I feel what we refer ONE
that ONE is EXPANDABLE to INFINITE and CONTRACTABLE back to ONE.. This way the CREATOR is not FORMLESS

In fact from the complex and infinite FORM of the CREATOR the whole 84 lacs Joones are created in a cyclic process.
and superb Human FORM is the result of Grace of Prabhu only.

Bhul Chuk Maaf

Daas

Prakash.S.Bagga.

THis topic has already been discussed.
[gurmatbibek.com]

This forum has a search engine which people can find old topics.

This is a very fundamental subject for everyone.
There is no harm if the same is shared a fresh .Quite possible we may have some more claried views
on this subject.
Recently scientist have undertaken an experiment and found some thing being refered as GOD PARTICLE.
Surprisingly from Gurbanee one can learn that the word GuROO is the reference for similar
TUT(Indivisible Single Element) further activated into WAVE/infinite WAVES for the creation of
the whole of Universe.
.
And it is this Single Idivisible TUT(u) to be recognised thru its RAAM NAAMu as..a pair of two similar words.

Bhul Chuk Maaf

Daas

Prakash.S.Bagga

I believe in Evolution and I also believe that Gurmat has no problem with this theory. I do not have time to elaborate more on this, so I'll just say a few words here.

#The figure 84 lakh of yonis has NOT been arrived at by Sikh Gurus. Its a figure which existed for thousands of years in religious lore of Bharatvarsha and was present in Ancient texts.

#The belief that 84 lakh joonis is a fixed number is erroneous. The figure has been taken to refer to all the innumerable existing life forms on earth.

#By saying that this figure is not fixed does NOT amount to saying that Gurbani is untrue. Gurbani did not assert this in the first place. Just as Japji Sahib states that there are infinite stars and planets, the 84 lakh figure should taken to convey a similar sense.

#Most of the arguments against theory of evolution are based upon incomplete understanding of the theory itself. There is not one but MANY solid proofs of evolution

#The theory does NOT say that Humans 'evolved' out of Apes. Every species that was born was born in ONE COMPLETE FULL form. So when first Human was born he was a FULL HOMOSAPIEN not half or 3/4. You will have to read about this yourself. Google is your friend. There are scores of articles on this.

# Even if 84 Lac figure is taken to be fixed it still does not pose a problem with Evolution! Think of it this way as the new species took birth, the DORMANT categories of out the Super-set of 84 Lakh became active! Thats All!

# The line 'Jo Kichh Payeya So Eka Vaar' CANNOT be taken to mean that Akal Purakh created everything in its final form and that since Evolution means species are progressing in increments (which is NOT the case as pointed out above) it should necessarily be against Gurmat. If we were to assign such a meaning to the line in question then we should come out of the womb of our mothers as full grown adults and not as children!

#Jo Kichh Payea So Eka Vaar actually means that once Universe was created, it was created in one package. This package contained things such as these by its birth and nothing was added later on. Things such as:
1. Potentiality
2. Law
3. Space
4. Time
When universe came into being at the time of UTKARSH (which incidentally corresponds directly with BIG BANG) It already had all the potentiality of whole Existence. Nothing was needed to be added on later.

# Let me also point out that concepts of Utkarsh and Akarsh mentioned in Chaupai sahib (again received from Ageless thoughts of Bharatvarsha and NOT unique to Sikhism) inherently point out to Evolution and progression. If everything Waheguru created was full and final there should never be an Utkarsh and an Akarsh.

I am late for work so I will leave this here and request people on this forum to do themselves and to Sikh community at large a favour and read up properly on the Evolution. A lot of great material is available for free online, all we have to do is make an effort if we have time.

One of the many good points of Sikhism is that we will never have a problem with scientific discoveries because Ancient Rishis as well as our Sikh Gurus conveyed the things through true connection with Akaal Purakh. Therefore there is no need to worry.

I too used to believe in Evolution until just fairly recently. The following is why I do not think it falls inline with Gurmat.

Quote

#The figure 84 lakh of yonis has NOT been arrived at by Sikh Gurus. Its a figure which existed for thousands of years in religious lore of Bharatvarsha and was present in Ancient texts.

#The belief that 84 lakh joonis is a fixed number is erroneous. The figure has been taken to refer to all the innumerable existing life forms on earth.

This is only your interpretation that 8.4 million has been used as a figurative term, there is no evidence too prove that to be true. Why would Guru Sahib choose to use such a specific number when Guru Sahib has the choice to use much more general terms if that is what was the intention. Regardless, believing that there are only 8.4 millinon joonis is not the same as saying there are 8.4 million species. There is a slight distinction there.

Denying the theory of Evolution does not equate with denying that Homo Heidelbergensis and other species did not exist. The only thing that we are denying is that those species changed into Homo Sapiens.

If evolution is real then at which point does the Nabh Kamal and Dasam Duar get created? Only Humans have these spiritual places in the body so did these also evolve?

Jo Kich Paya So Eka Vaar means that everything that is in sristhee was all created at the same time. All of these species fall into the 8.4 million joonis and were always there. Some are dormant and some are active, but the number does not change. That means that at the same time as there was Homo Heidelbergensis there was also Homo Sapiens and even now there are Homo Heidelbergensis but it is only dormant at this time.

Growth is not the same as evolution. It is a biological part of the Human to grow over that many years but will always stay a human. Evolution is that at some point the human species will stop being human and become some other species which would make humans obsolete. This is not inline with Gurmat.

Preetam Singh

At last we have some serious discussion here - mystical23 and Preetam Singh jeeo great input.

>Preetam Singh Wrote:
>-------------------------------------------------------
> This is only your interpretation that 8.4 million
> has been used as a figurative term, there is no
> evidence too prove that to be true.

The evidence is there. And the evidence is that this figure is not Guru ji's. Its handed down from Ancient rishis. There are other figures too

68 teeraths- There is no clear list of 68 teeraths in Hindu religion. Its just a mythical figure. And yet Gurbani mentions it. Does this mean we have to take it to be a fixed number? NO. Whereever Gurbani uses this figure it means ALL the important teeraths. I quote from Mahan Kosh:

Quote
Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha
Mahan Kosh Encyclopedia
ਗੁਰੁਬਾਣੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਠਸਠਿ ਗਿਣਤੀ ਹਿੰਦੂਆਂ ਦੇ ਅਠਾਹਠ ਤੀਰਥਾਂ ਦਾ ਬੋਧ ਕਰਾਉਂਦੀ ਹੈ. "ਸੁਣਿਐ ਅਠਸਠਿ ਕਾ ਇਸਨਾਨੁ". (ਜਪੁ) ਗੁਰੂ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦਾ ਅਠਸਠ ਤੋਂ ਭਾਵ ਸਰਵ ਤੀਰਥ ਹੈ. ਹਿੰਦੂਮਤ ਦੇ ਗ੍ਰੰਥਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਮਤਭੇਦ ਕਰਕੇ ਤੀਰਥਾਂ ਦੀ ਗਿਣਤੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਬਹੁਤ ਫਰਕ ਹੈ. ਅਨੇਕ ਗ੍ਰੰਥਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਗਿਣਤੀ ਬਹੁਤ ਵਧਕੇ ਹੈ. ਮਤਸ੍ਯ ਪੁਰਾਣ ਦੇ ਸ਼੍ਰਾੱਧ ਕਲਪ ਦੇ ੨੨ਵੇਂ ਅਧਯਾਯ ਵਿੱਚ ੨੨੨ ਤੀਰਥ ਦੱਸੇ ਹਨ. ਭਵਿਸ਼੍ਯ ਪੁਰਾਣ ਦੇ ਨਾਗਰ ਖੰਡ ਦੇ ਅਧ੍ਯਾਯ ੧੦੨ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੋਰ ਗਿਣਤੀ ਹੈ. ਕਪਿਲ ਤੰਤ੍ਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਠਾਸਠ ਤੀਰਥ ਇਹ ਲਿਖੇ ਹਨ- ਓਅੰਕਾਰ, ਅਯੋਧ੍ਯਾ, ਅਵੰਤਿਕਾ, ਏਰਾਵਤੀ, ਸ਼ਤਦ੍ਰੁ, ਸਰਸ੍ਵਤੀ, ਸਰਯੂ, ਸਿੰਧੁ, ਸ਼ਿਪ੍ਰਾ, ਸ਼ੋਣ, ਸ਼੍ਰੀਸ਼ੈਲ, ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਰੰਗ, ਹਰਿਦ੍ਵਾਰ, ਕਪਾਲਮੋਚਨ, ਕਪਿਲੋਦਕ, ਕਾਸ਼ੀ, ਕਾਂਚੀ, ਕਾਲੰਜਰ, ਕਾਵੇਰੀ, ਕੁਰੁਕ੍ਸ਼ੇਤ੍ਰ, ਕੇਦਾਰਨਾਥ ਕੌਸ਼ਿਕੀ, ਗਯਾ, ਗੋਕਰਣ, ਗੋਦਾਵਰੀ, ਗੋਮਤੀ, ਗੋਵਰਧਨ, ਗੰਗਾ ਸਾਗਰ, ਗੰਡਕਾ, ਘਰਘਰਾ, ਚਰਮਨ੍ਵਤੀ, ਚਿਤ੍ਰਕੂਟ, ਚੰਦ੍ਰਭਾਗਾ, ਜਗੰਨਾਥ, ਜ੍ਵਾਲਾਮੁਖੀ, ਤਪਤੀ, ਤਾਮ੍ਰਪਰਣੀ, ਤੁੰਗਭਦ੍ਰਾ, ਦਸ਼ਾਮ੍ਵਮੇਧ, ਦ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਦਵਤੀ, ਦ੍ਵਾਰਿਕਾ, ਧਾਰਾ, ਨਰਮਦਾ, ਨਾਗਤੀਰਥ, ਨੈਮਿਸ, ਪੁਸਕਰ, ਪ੍ਰਯਾਗ ਤ੍ਰਿਵੇਣੀ ਸੰਗਮ, ਪ੍ਰਿਥੂਦਕ, ਬਦਰੀ ਨਾਰਾਇਣ, ਭਦ੍ਰੇਸ਼੍ਵਰ, ਭੀਮੇਸ਼੍ਵਹ, ਭ੍ਰਿਗੁਤੁੰਗ, ਮਹਾਂਕਾਲ, ਮਾਹਬੋਧਿ, ਮਥੁਰਾ ਮਾਨਸਰੋਵਰ, ਮਾਯਾਪੁਰੀ, ਮੰਦਾਕਿਨੀ, ਯਮੁਨਾ, ਰਾਮੇਸ਼੍ਵਰ, ਵਿਤਸਤਾ, ਵਿੰਧ੍ਯ, ਵਿਪਾਸ਼, ਵਿਮੇਲਸ਼੍ਵਰ, ਵੇਣਾ, ਵੇਤ੍ਰਵਤੀ, ਵੈਸਨਵੀ ਅਤੇ ਵੈਦ੍ਯਨਾਥ.

So does it mean that Guru Nanak meant specifically 68 teeraths, not 69 not 70? I would say this view would be wrong. What Guru Sahib meant was all the teeraths collectively irrespective of the fact whether they are included in list or not.
In the line "ਸੁਣਿਐ ਅਠਸਠਿ ਕਾ ਇਸਨਾਨੁ" the benefit of NAAM is NOT restricted to just 68 teeraths! It is above ALL the teeraths of the world. The figure of 68 is being used figuratively for all the teeraths collectively.

There are many figures which have been referred in Gurbani which have been received from Ancient Hindu texts, 4 veda, 6 darshana, 8 siddhis, 18 siddhis, 68 teeraths, 84 lakh joonis. All these have been used in Gurbani simply because they were in common currency amongst the lay people as well as Hindu masses of the time. All these have been used just as a reference. Guru ji is not concerned with their actual count. He is concerned only with NAAM and its practice.




>Why would Guru Sahib choose to use such a specific number
> when Guru Sahib has the choice to use much more
> general terms if that is what was the intention.

Simply because he was interacting with masses in general and the masses were using these figures since ancient times.

> Regardless, believing that there are only 8.4
> millinon joonis is not the same as saying there
> are 8.4 million species. There is a slight
> distinction there.

Of course there is a distinction and that does not create any objection.

> Denying the theory of Evolution does not equate
> with denying that Homo Heidelbergensis and other
> species did not exist. The only thing that we are
> denying is that those species changed into Homo
> Sapiens.

The species did NOT change into Homo Sapiens. Homo Sapiens came into being as a result of genetic variation. When the genetic code of Homo Sapiens came into being they were different from others right away.

> If evolution is real then at which point does the
> Nabh Kamal and Dasam Duar get created? Only
> Humans have these spiritual places in the body so
> did these also evolve?

You are missing the point. Please read up on Evolution. Human species did not progressively 'evolve'.

> Jo Kich Paya So Eka Vaar means that everything
> that is in sristhee was all created at the same
> time. All of these species fall into the 8.4
> million joonis and were always there.

By accepting that Waheguru created ONLY 84 lac joonis we are in effect saying that Creation of Waheguru is limited. Is this not erroneous? If joonis is limited then Universe itself would be limited? Going in this direction we are accepting something which is completely contradictory to Gurbani's view of Anant Waheguru.

> Growth is not the same as evolution. It is a
> biological part of the Human to grow over that
> many years but will always stay a human.
> Evolution is that at some point the human species
> will stop being human and become some other
> species which would make humans obsolete. This is
> not inline with Gurmat.

Well if it ever happens, it will happen. In any case that NEXT species would be DEVTA and it will happen directly as a result of Guru ji's Kirpa.

Gurbani already says: 'Jin Maanas Te Devtey Kiye'

At mind level Gursikhs are already becoming devtaas. But gradually as a result of evolution the divine physical forms may start manifesting too. But all this is mere speculation at this stage.

I would also like to add that in US and Canada some christian churches like Jehovah's Witness preach vociferously against Evolution and other science findings. It is in this background that this thread has come up for discussion on a Sikh forum.

My suggestion to all sikhs in general is that we should NOT indulge in arguing about Scientific findings. Pure science is path of understanding the universe and the laws which govern it through scientific research methodology. Whenever some new finding about the nature of matter or creation of universe or life on other planets or aliens comes up Sikhs should treat it all as just another aspect of ANANT PARAMATMA. As Gurbani says:

ਇਹੁਪਰਪੰਚੁਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮਕੀਲੀਲਾਬਿਚਰਤਆਨਨਹੋਈ
or
ਏਹੁਪਰਪੰਚੁਖੇਲੁਕੀਆਸਭੁਕਰਤੈਹਰਿਕਰਤੈਸਭਕਲਧਾਰੀ

This is the right attitude. Its all a Divine Play. It is Bachitter Natak. By needlessly taking a stand where one is not required we stand ourselves in danger of creating self-doubt.

Lets take another example. Guru ji uses the figure of 14 bhavans and 10 directions at many places in Gurbani. Here for example:

ਚਉਦਹਿ ਚਾਰਿ ਕੁੰਟ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਆਪ ॥ ਸਗਲ ਭਵਨ ਪੂਰਨ ਪਰਤਾਪ ॥ ਦਸੇ ਦਿਸਾ ਰਵਿਆ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਏਕੁ ॥ ਧਰਨਿ ਅਕਾਸ ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਪੇਖੁ ॥ ਜਲ ਥਲ ਬਨ ਪਰਬਤ ਪਾਤਾਲ ॥ ਪਰਮੇਸ੍ਵਰ ਤਹ ਬਸਹਿ ਦਇਆਲ ॥ ਸੂਖਮ ਅਸਥੂਲ ਸਗਲ ਭਗਵਾਨ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਪਛਾਨ ॥੧੪॥

According to wikipedia here is the list of 14 Loka of Hinduism:

01 Satya-loka
02 Tapa-loka
03 Jana-loka
04 Mahar-loka
05 Svar-loka
06 Bhuvar-loka
07 Bhur-loka
08 Atala-loka
09 Vitala-loka
10 Sutala-loka
11 Talatala-loka
12 Mahatala-loka
13 Rasatala-loka
14 Patala-loka

Now by using the term 14 Loka is Guruji subscribing to the exact list of 14 lokas? And is Guru ji claiming that that these 14 lokas exist? And suppose tommorrow somebody finds out that in fact it is not 14 but 15 or 13, would that render Gurbani as untrue? No. Guruji is using the figure 14 Lokas just because it was in common currency amongst the audience he was addressing.

All these figures and terms have been used by Guru ji because these terms were in common currency amongst his audience, which largely consisted of hindu lay people as well as the educated pandits and others such as jogees and siddhas etc.

Today we commonly use the term 360 degrees to mean a full circle, all around. Sometimes we say goverment has taken a U-Turn or 180 degrees turn. In the same way at the time of Guru ji 10 directions was the term which was used to denote all the directions, meaning all around. So Guruji used this term in Gurbani.
If somebody were to create a division of all the directions into more than 10, lets say 20, and further supposingly we all start using it and it becomes common currency, would this render Gurbani untrue? No. Gurbani would mean the same thing as always. 10 directions is used to say that Waheguru is permeating everywhere in every direction whether 4 or 10 or 20 or 200, the count does not matter.

ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਮੇਦਨੀ ਘਟੈ ਨ ਵਧੈ ਉਤਾਹਿ ॥

The above Pankiti clearly states not only that there are 8.4 million life forms but also that this number does not go up or down. There are more such Pankitis as well but for a Sikh just one Pankiti will suffice.

Now if we believe that one life-form can evolve or devolve to something else, then we have to accept that a new life-form has been created and this will violate the above Hukam of Guru Sahib.

I am not an expert on the evolution theory but know that one of the claims it has made is that humans have possibly evolved from Baandars (monkeys). The human life form is very special and as per Gurbani this life form is the doorway to Vaheguru and only in this life form it is possible to meet Vaheguru and for this reason this body has secret Dasam Duaar or the mystical tenth door. How did the genetic mutation or whatever it is called, caused to create a life form that contains something as specific as the Dasam Duaar?

It is the Jeev-Aatma that goes through different life forms and but the life forms don't evolve to different life forms. A cat is going to stay a cat and will not become a dog, no matter what. Yes within the parameters of the cat life form, it may become large, small, Black, White etc. but it cannot become a different life form.

What to talk about and trust science that changes every now and then. Now with the discovery of the so called "god particle" it has rendered many old theories obsolete. The theory of evolution is just a theory and nothing else. Most of it including its concept of the survival of the fittest is garbage. According to Gurbani, Vaheguru is Deena Naath and Ghareeb Nivaaz. He would never allow the survival of the strong just because of their strongness. He according to His will may many times let the biggest underdog to survive and let the fittest perish. Darwin's evolution theory is for Manmukhs who believe that Vaheguru jee is not leading the world and that it came into being and evolved to this level as part of some accidental chemical reactions. Can we believe such nonsense when we know that even a leaf does not move without Vaheguru's will?

Kulbir Singh

Mystical23 can you kindly explain to us what theorist believe where the mind has originated. Does this theory support Gurmat in terms of reincarnation and " Mann tu Jot Saroop Hai... ".?

Lets be honest. The theory of evolution is strictly a secular interpretation of creation. The theories behind evolution do not take into consideration the spiritual dimensions on creation. The theories focus only on the five elements and completely ignore the the 6th element the subconscious mind. A person acquires their body according to their minds disposition, but I never once heard Darwin mention this.

Furthermore, Gurbani also asserts that out of the 8.4 million life forms, 4.2 million life forms are in water:

ਬਇਆਲੀਸ ਲਖ ਜੀ ਜਲ ਮਹਿ ਹੋਤੇ ਬੀਠਲੁ ਭੈਲਾ ਕਾਇ ਕਰਉ ॥1॥

I haven't read anywhere in Hindu texts that there are 4.2 millioin life forms in water i.e. ocean. When our Guru Sahibaan and respectable Bhagat Sahibaan are making such strong claims, then we ought to believe in their assertions. What was the need for Bhagat jee to be so specific in the above Pankiti, if it was not the truth?

Science can say whatever it wants to say. Even if our all 5 senses say something contrary to Gurbani, we ought to reject such notion. The eyes on a clear day see that far away the sky and earth meeting but we reject the testimony of the eyes and don't believe that the sky and the earth can meet. Same way, if Gurbani is very strongly asserting that there are 8.4 million life forms, and out of these 4.2 million are in water, then we as Sachyaar Sikh ought to believe in this claim.

Sure, Gurbani has used the worldly units of measurement in making statements e.g. stating that there are 4 directions and also stating 10 directions as per different unit of measure. In such places we know that Guru Sahib means to say all directions but in case of life forms, Guru Sahib has not only said that there are 8.4 life forms but also stated that this number does not go up or down. So this is different from 4 or 10 directions.

Kulbir Singh

Quote

#The theory does NOT say that Humans 'evolved' out of Apes. Every species that was born was born in ONE COMPLETE FULL form. So when first Human was born he was a FULL HOMOSAPIEN not half or 3/4. You will have to read about this yourself. Google is your friend. There are scores of articles on this.

Mystical jee, I'm not sure that you understand what the theory of evolution teaches. The theory teaches that there was a common ancestor and through generations slight changes kept happening until a new species was born. This continues on in a matter of random selection and survival of the fittest till genes which are most fit for survival carry through the different generations until a new species is formed. At some points there would be two different species of the same ancestor with slightly different genes that were fighting for survival.

Over time this led to the Genus of Homo to come into formation. Starting with Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus living side by side, slowly through the generational offspring of the Homo Genus it led the the point of Homo Neandrathals and Homo Sapiens out of which only Homo Sapiens survived. This means that from Homo Heidelbergensis till the first Homo Sapien, there were many generations in which mutations kept happening until a whole Homo Sapien came into being. This also means that the parents of that Homo Sapien where not Human.

How does that make any sense?

This theory is not inline with Gurmat because it would mean that the number of joonis changed depending on random selection and survival of the fittest.

Also a question to you directly, at which point in evolution did the dasam duar and nabh kamal apear? Was it that first Homo Sapien? and was that random selection or survival of the fittest?

Preetam Singh

Quote

You are missing the point. Please read up on Evolution. Human species did not progressively 'evolve'.

Mystical jee, please read up on the theory of evolution. You clearly do not understand it. Even a simple Wikipedia search will give you enough information to understand that evolution means that the human species progressively evolved and is continuing to do so.

Although this theory is not inline with Gurmat, I would suggest that you fully understand it before you back it and accuse others of not having read up on the theory. I wouldn't debate on this subject if I hadn't read up on Evolution. If you would like I can point you in the right direction for some reading material so you can fully understand what theory you are backing.

Preetam Singh

Kulbir Singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਮੇਦਨੀ
> ਘਟੈ ਨ ਵਧੈ ਉਤਾਹਿ ॥
>
> The above Pankiti clearly states not only that
> there are 8.4 million life forms but also that
> this number does not go up or down. There are more
> such Pankitis as well but for a Sikh just one
> Pankiti will suffice.

The line does not mean what you take it to be. You have to keep it in context. It is not a comment on the number of yonis on earth. Here is full stanza:

ਜੋ ਆਵਹਿ ਸੇ ਜਾਹਿ ਫੁਨਿ ਆਇ ਗਏ ਪਛੁਤਾਹਿ ॥ ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਮੇਦਨੀ ਘਟੈ ਨ ਵਧੈ ਉਤਾਹਿ ॥ ਸੇ ਜਨ ਉਬਰੇ ਜਿਨ ਹਰਿ ਭਾਇਆ ॥ ਧੰਧਾ ਮੁਆ ਵਿਗੂਤੀ ਮਾਇਆ ॥ ਜੋ ਦੀਸੈ ਸੋ ਚਾਲਸੀ ਕਿਸ ਕਉ ਮੀਤੁ ਕਰੇਉ ॥ ਜੀਉ ਸਮਪਉ ਆਪਣਾ ਤਨੁ ਮਨੁ ਆਗੈ ਦੇਉ ॥ ਅਸਥਿਰੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਤੂ ਧਣੀ ਤਿਸ ਹੀ ਕੀ ਮੈ ਓਟ ॥ ਗੁਣ ਕੀ ਮਾਰੀ ਹਉ ਮੁਈ ਸਬਦਿ ਰਤੀ ਮਨਿ ਚੋਟ ॥੪੩॥

In the first line it is said that jeevs come into this world by birth and then have to depart on death. They have to keep on doing this and this cycle keeps them in misery.
Now comes the next line. This line means that for all the jeevs coming and going, the setup/ the process/ the prakriya/ the method/ the system of coming and going into the 84 lac joonis neither decreases nor increases.
In other words if we take the cycle of birth and death as a prescribed thing, then this prescription, remains as it is for all the jeevs as long as Hari does not have mercy and bring them on path of bhakti. This is the meaning of this line.

If we take this line to be a comment on the exact number of yonis, then this line has no place over here in this stanza, because the theme of the stanza is the misery of the jeev due to birth and death.

> Now if we believe that one life-form can evolve or
> devolve to something else,

No, the species do not 'devolve'. They decrease in numbers and become extinct but do not devolve. This is because evolution is about adaptation and survival, its not about going up or down the ladder.

> then we have to accept
> that a new life-form has been created and this
> will violate the above Hukam of Guru Sahib.

Emergence of new life forms has been scientifically proven and this does NOT violate Hukam of Guru Sahib. Guru Sahib means something entirely different than what you are saying. You are 'ascribing' the fixed number as a being the original thought of Guru ji and that if proven wrong Guru ji will be wrong. This is not so. By 84 lac Guru just means ALL THE YONIS.

> I am not an expert on the evolution theory but
> know that one of the claims it has made is that
> humans have possibly evolved from Baandars
> (monkeys).

As I have mentioned a couple of times earlier in my posts, you will have to read up to get a clear idea of how exactly species came into being. Humans did not evolve out of Baandars (monkeys). Baandars are a different species than homo sapiens. Due to various factors explained by evolution such as genetic variation both species came into being under different circumstances. Both have a common ancestors but both are different. I cannot explain the whole theory here, you will have to read up yourself.

>The human life form is very special and
> as per Gurbani this life form is the doorway to
> Vaheguru and only in this life form it is possible
> to meet Vaheguru and for this reason this body has
> secret Dasam Duaar or the mystical tenth door.

Evolution does not pose a problem for Dasam Duar, because when Homo Sapien were born they HAD Dasam Duar with them or in them or whatever. There was never a day that a Human was born and his Dasam Duar was yet to evolve. Do you get it? Homo Sapiens either existed or not simple. There was NEVER a half HomoSapien.

>How did the genetic mutation or whatever it is called,
> caused to create a life form that contains
> something as specific as the Dasam Duaar?

How? Because of Waheguru who else? He is behind everything! Of course!

> It is the Jeev-Aatma that goes through different
> life forms and but the life forms don't evolve to
> different life forms.

You are wrong sir. You can either educate yourself on the 150 years of scientific evidence or choose to ignore it by sticking to few misconceptions
Evolution is a fact, its not just a theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

> What to talk about and trust science that changes
> every now and then. Now with the discovery of the
> so called "god particle" it has rendered many old
> theories obsolete. The theory of evolution is just
> a theory and nothing else.
Wrong. See the link above. There are tonnes of evidence online. Just google and spend some time.

>Most of it including
> its concept of the survival of the fittest is
> garbage. According to Gurbani, Vaheguru is Deena
> Naath and Ghareeb Nivaaz. He would never allow the
> survival of the strong just because of their
> strongness.

This again is misconception. Survival of the fittest does not mean physical strength. Species do not have to by physically strong to survive. They have to adapt to their environment according to their needs.


> He according to His will may many
> times let the biggest underdog to survive and let
> the fittest perish. Darwin's evolution theory is
> for Manmukhs who believe that Vaheguru jee is not
> leading the world and that it came into being and
> evolved to this level as part of some accidental
> chemical reactions.

You are wrong. Darwin's theory is for those who upon seeing the complexity of Creation become even more appreciative of Onkaar. I myself feel more and more in AWE of Waheguru ji because of all this information. I marvel at the stars and sun and moon and all its infinite complexity and magic. This brings me closer to Waheguru not away from Him.

>Can we believe such nonsense
> when we know that even a leaf does not move
> without Vaheguru's will?

Who said species are evolving outside Waheguru's Hukam? Everything happens because He is doing it, including the Evolution. He created the flowers as well as thorns, he created fine weather, he created Tsunami, earthquakes and destruction.

Everything is his Parpanch, His Leela. In fact Evolution helps us understand His Leela, appreciate His Leela.

Sukhdeep Singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mystical23 can you kindly explain to us what
> theorist believe where the mind has originated.
> Does this theory support Gurmat in terms of
> reincarnation and " Mann tu Jot Saroop Hai... ".?

Evolution concerns itself with species, not their mind. This was never the intention and why are we even expecting this from the theory? Why compare Apples and Oranges?

> Lets be honest. The theory of evolution is
> strictly a secular interpretation of creation.
> The theories behind evolution do not take into
> consideration the spiritual dimensions on
> creation. The theories focus only on the five
> elements and completely ignore the the 6th element
> the subconscious mind.

Of course! And it does not 'ignore' consciousness. Consciousness is OUTSIDE its purview.

>A person acquires their
> body according to their minds disposition, but I
> never once heard Darwin mention this.

Well that is because that was never the subject of the theory in the first place. Its simple really.

ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਮੇਦਨੀ; ਘਟੈ ਨ ਵਧੈ ਉਤਾਹਿ ॥

I think this clearly proves that the 8.4 million number is literal, and not just a metaphor. Also, the number never increases nor decreases, which means evolution is not possible.

And plus....do you really want me to expect my great great great great grandpa was a bandar?

Every species that comes into being as a result of various factors of genetic variation and such is a complete and full species on its own and it is not Half Way of a future species. And within a species an individual remains with same specie-specific body its whole life.
When a species is not able to produce a viable offspring from another one it can be considered to be a separate species. Homo Sapiens should be taken to have come into being at such a point. And from there on they are homo-sapiens. The earlier species can be taken to be some percentage of homo sapien in way, but I do not consider it to be homo sapien.

Its only by convenience that we choose to take 68 teeraths and 10 directions and 14 lokas as to be used figuratively and take 84 lac as something to swear by.
If there are 14 Lokas how do they fit in with the theory of 5 Khands? Going by this approach Guru ji should have, while elaborating in the Gyan Khand have been specific about the count of everything. And he did not mention 14 lokas at all. Strange?

GurmanSingh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਮੇਦਨੀ;
> ਘਟੈ ਨ ਵਧੈ ਉਤਾਹਿ ॥
>
> I think this clearly proves that the 8.4 million
> number is literal, and not just a metaphor. Also,
> the number never increases nor decreases, which
> means evolution is not possible.

The stanza as I explained before is talking about the misery of jeev due to cycle of birth and death. In the line above Guru ji says that jeev is continuously cycling in birth and death. In the second line he says that for such jeevs the cycle of birth and death i.e. lakh chaurasi here at the medni/earth does not fluctuate. The cycle remains the same. Here again Guruji is using the term 84 as to mean the collection of Joonis. The line tells us that this cycle shall remain as it is for us until we are released from this. This cycle neither increases for any particular jeev nor decreases for any particular reason. It shall remain the same as long as we are not released from it.

Its only this explanation that fits in with the earlier line ਜੋ ਆਵਹਿ ਸੇ ਜਾਹਿ ਫੁਨਿ ਆਇ ਗਏ ਪਛੁਤਾਹਿ. Otherwise it seems an abrupt change of topic.
Loosely translated it means:

ਜੋ ਆਵਹਿ ਸੇ ਜਾਹਿ ਫੁਨਿ; ਆਇ ਗਏ ਪਛੁਤਾਹਿ
Those who come, go back (by dying) and remain in misery
ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਮੇਦਨੀ; ਘਟੈ ਨ ਵਧੈ ਉਤਾਹਿ
For them(the one mentioned above) the cycle of birth and death at earth neither increases or decreases. They keep stuck in the process according to the law of karma.
ਸੇ ਜਨ ਉਬਰੇ, ਜਿਨ ਹਰਿ ਭਾਇਆ
Only those are released who love the Lord (it might mean whom the Lord loves)
ਧੰਧਾ ਮੁਆ, ਵਿਗੂਤੀ ਮਾਇਆ
For them(who are mentioned in the line above), the entanglement finishes, and Maya is defeated/conquered

Taking the second line to mean that Guruji is commenting on the fixed number of joonis will throw the line totally out of context.


> And plus....do you really want me to expect my
> great great great great grandpa was a bandar?
>
>
> [images.paraorkut.com]
> /monkey_wearing_clothes-11981.jpg

Our great great great great grandpa was never photographed. And yes we did have ancestors who were not homo sapiens. But once Homo sapien had become Homo-sapiens, meaning that they crossed the boundary from previous species, those individuals were humans just like us albeit mentally not so much similar but biologically yes.

Once homo-sapiens came into being, meaning the first set of individuals were born who matched Homo-Sapien genes, I would consider them to be my ancestors as far as personal family lineage is concerned :-)

Arguing in favour of a scientific theory does not mean that I make it my religion. I take it and weave it into my thought world.

#For me there is no problem in accepting that each species came into being at a particular time on earth.
#Genetic variation and other factors brought about a reason and a cause for the new species to come into being.
#Changes kept on occuring in species and cnce a barrier was crossed individuals were born who constituted a new species.
#Once the first individuals of modern man family were born the story of human civilization started.
#Human beings have developed socially, mentally every since.
#All this and everything else has taken place within Parabrahma/the Onkar/ParamAtma because nothing can exist outside the infinity.

#Nothing in Evolution conflicts the special status of Humans on earth. We need not feel threatened by anything.

A Note on Mind
There no such thing as Human mind as far as birth and death cycle is concerned. Its the same mind whether we take birth as a bird or a tree or something else. In the higher forms the mind manifests more than the lower forms. In a human form the mind is highest as compared to others. When according to our karma we take birth as lower life the mind shall recede into a passive/dormant state.

I really should not be using internet at my work place, got to go now :-)

Don't accuse me of being a homo, mystical23. I am straight, you go be homo all you want

Quote

The line does not mean what you take it to be. You have to keep it in context. It is not a comment on the number of yonis on earth. Here is full stanza:
ਜੋ ਆਵਹਿ ਸੇ ਜਾਹਿ ਫੁਨਿ ਆਇ ਗਏ ਪਛੁਤਾਹਿ ॥ ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਮੇਦਨੀ ਘਟੈ ਨ ਵਧੈ ਉਤਾਹਿ ॥ ਸੇ ਜਨ ਉਬਰੇ ਜਿਨ ਹਰਿ ਭਾਇਆ ॥ ਧੰਧਾ ਮੁਆ ਵਿਗੂਤੀ ਮਾਇਆ ॥ ਜੋ ਦੀਸੈ ਸੋ ਚਾਲਸੀ ਕਿਸ ਕਉ ਮੀਤੁ ਕਰੇਉ ॥ ਜੀਉ ਸਮਪਉ ਆਪਣਾ ਤਨੁ ਮਨੁ ਆਗੈ ਦੇਉ ॥ ਅਸਥਿਰੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਤੂ ਧਣੀ ਤਿਸ ਹੀ ਕੀ ਮੈ ਓਟ ॥ ਗੁਣ ਕੀ ਮਾਰੀ ਹਉ ਮੁਈ ਸਬਦਿ ਰਤੀ ਮਨਿ ਚੋਟ ॥੪੩॥
In the first line it is said that jeevs come into this world by birth and then have to depart on death. They have to keep on doing this and this cycle keeps them in misery.
Now comes the next line. This line means that for all the jeevs coming and going, the setup/ the process/ the prakriya/ the method/ the system of coming and going into the 84 lac joonis neither decreases nor increases.
In other words if we take the cycle of birth and death as a prescribed thing, then this prescription, remains as it is for all the jeevs as long as Hari does not have mercy and bring them on path of bhakti. This is the meaning of this line.

Why have you interpreted this Pankiti in such complicated way when the meaning is so straightforward? Where did you get the words "prakriya, method, system" etc when there is no mention of this in the Pankiti. It makes no sense in saying that the system does not increase or decrease. The Medni that has 84 Lakh life forms does not increase or decrease i.e. the number of Joonis stay the same.

In the first Pankiti Guru Sahib has stated that - those who come they go from here; they regret/suffer by coming and going. The question arises naturally as to where do they come and go? This is what is answered in the next Pankiti - (they go and come) in the unchanging Medni that has 84 Lakh joonis. In other words, the Jeevs come and go in the 8.4 million life forms on this Earth (Medni), and these 8.4 life forms are solid i.e. don't increase or decrease. It is true that the main aim of Guru Sahib is not to mention the number of Joonis but while talking about the sufferings of the transmigrating Jeevs, this number came about naturally.

Quote

Emergence of new life forms has been scientifically proven and this does NOT violate Hukam of Guru Sahib.

Show us the proof. Which new life form has been created recently and from which previous life form it evolved? Show us which new life form e.g. cat, dog, snake etc. has evolved in the recent past and show us the proof.

Quote

Evolution does not pose a problem for Dasam Duar, because when Homo Sapien were born they HAD Dasam Duar with them or in them or whatever. There was never a day that a Human was born and his Dasam Duar was yet to evolve. Do you get it? Homo Sapiens either existed or not simple. There was NEVER a half HomoSapien.

1. So this means that all of sudden a the alleged predecessor of the homosapien gave birth to a homosapien and all of sudden this homosapien had Dasam Duaar and Nabh Kamal etc. And please tell us if this homosapien was a male or female. How did this homosapien reproduce? Are you suggesting that there was another chemical reaction and a genetic mutation accident thereby producing another homosapien and that too of the opposite sex? The odds of this happening are next to none.

2. If you say that the same mother (predecessor) gave birth to twins and these twins happened to be one male and one female; then too the problem is how did they reproduce? Did the brother and sister mate to have babies? This is a disgusting occurence. Vaheguru would never have allowed the start of his Ashraf-ul-Makhlooqaat (best of Joonis) to start off with such a huge sin as sex between siblings.

3. By this theory you have to assume that the non-human predecessor of the human, gave birth to a human male and female. But this is impossible. A dog can give birth only to a dog and a cat only to a cat. So much so that within the Joonis, the Jeevs can give birth to very similar jeevs e.g. a Black couple cannot give birth to a White child and a Chinese couple cannot give birth to a Punjabi child. So then how could the alleged non-human predecessor of the human give birth to a human?

Quote

This again is misconception. Survival of the fittest does not mean physical strength. Species do not have to by physically strong to survive. They have to adapt to their environment according to their needs.

I know the fittest does not only mean physical strong but still this rule cannot be taken at face value. Vaheguru under his Will may save anyone and perish anyone as well.

Quote

If there are 14 Lokas how do they fit in with the theory of 5 Khands? Going by this approach Guru ji should have, while elaborating in the Gyan Khand have been specific about the count of everything. And he did not mention 14 lokas at all. Strange?

All the Lokas and Puris of Hindus fall either in Dharam Khand or Gyaan Khand as per the descriptions of these Khands in Siri Jap jee Sahib. Khands are much bigger than Loks and Puris. I hope you don't claim that the 5 Khands too are not 5 in count but infinite. Khands are 5 only and Joonis are 8.4 million only. Teeraths are 68 only and over the time they have developed more or less Teeraths as per different sects but the original are 68 only. I advise you not to open multiple topics in this topic which is to discuss the so called evolution theory and Gurmat. Start new topics if you want to discuss.

Kulbir Singh

Quote

In the second line he says that for such jeevs the cycle of birth and death i.e. lakh chaurasi here at the medni/earth does not fluctuate. The cycle remains the same.

Who says that the cycle does not fluctuate for Jeevs. Depending on the Karma of the Jeevs, all Jeevs go through different cycle of birth and death. Some have to go through the whole cycle of 8.4 million life forms while others get human form right away after the previous human form. So this meaning that you have derived of the cycle not increasing or decreasing (don't know what increase or decrease of a cycle means) does not make sense in this Pankiti.

Quote

Our great great great great grandpa was never photographed. And yes we did have ancestors who were not homo sapiens. But once Homo sapien had become Homo-sapiens, meaning that they crossed the boundary from previous species, those individuals were humans just like us albeit mentally not so much similar but biologically yes.

Just because you say so or some crazy scientist (or a bunch of atheist scientists) claim that at one time the mother of a human (the so called first human) was a non-human, does not mean that we would believe such a notion. Show us the proof. How can you be so sure of something that happened millions of years ago? If not proof of the past, demonstrate to us today by showing us a dog giving birth to a cat or a human giving birth to something else. Heck, just prove by demonstrating White parents giving birth to a Chinese child.

Quote

Human beings have developed socially, mentally every since.

But why did they not develop physically? Why have they stopped evolving now? As per the evolution theory, the specie evolves to something better or strong and this would mean that according to evolution theory, humans would over time, evolve to something better. Right? But this would violate Gurmat which preaches that this human form is the highest possible form - Nanak Mer Sareer ka...

The theory of evolution is a theory for atheists and it does not befit Gursikhs to subscribe to this atheist manmukhi theory. Gurmat is Supreme of all theories.

Kulbir Singh

Few Questions :

Q1. Does the variety counted as different Joonis. For example there are variety of Fishes - Whale, Shark, Goldfish etc... So does this mean all Fish varities are One-One Jooni each or there is only One Jooni Fish which covers all.

There can be many examples like this. For example there are variety of Mangoes, Apples, Roses, Dogs, Cats etc.... I think One Jooni consist of One Class but not variety in it. Is this correct ????

Q2. Are all 84 Lakh Joonis Chakar happens on planet Earth or the Joonis goes to different Planets, Planes and Places ????

Q3. What about the species which are extinct now. For example Dinosaurs - after the fossils discovery there have been enough proof that they existed on planet Earth. So does this mean that this Jooni is dormant and no one goes in it now. Or this Jooni has been transfered to some other planet and Chakar happens there. Any more thoughts related to this ????

Bhul Chuk Maaf.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa,
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.

The evolution theory was invented by Charles Darwin. But no-body questions whether he himself was fully evolved at the time of that theory !!!

Scientists may still be busy evolving this theory and still no-body questions whether these Scientists have fully evolved or not.

Bhul Chuk Maaf.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa,
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.

Kulbir Singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Just because you say so or some crazy scientist
> (or a bunch of atheist scientists) claim that at
> one time the mother of a human (the so called
> first human) was a non-human, does not mean that
> we would believe such a notion. Show us the proof.

You can look around for proof. There are fossils and bone structures of many of the earlier species. There are many other proofs too. Scienctific evidence is rigorous. Its not just a bunch of ideas.

> How can you be so sure of something that happened
> millions of years ago? If not proof of the past,
> demonstrate to us today by showing us a dog giving
> birth to a cat or a human giving birth to
> something else. Heck, just prove by demonstrating
> White parents giving birth to a Chinese child.

This is not serious enough to answer.

> Human beings have developed socially, mentally
> every since.
>
> But why did they not develop physically? Why have
> they stopped evolving now?

Evolution does not take place in a short span of time. It takes thousand and thousand of years. But in smaller life forms such as bacteria there have been observed evolution:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

As per the evolution
> theory, the specie evolves to something better or
> strong and this would mean that according to
> evolution theory, humans would over time, evolve
> to something better. Right?

Better not in the sense of being inferior right now. Better for the changing environment. But change in humans cannot be simply through natural selection because humans have the capability of engineering their outer environment and controlling other factors. Plus in evolution there has been an accepted role of isolation. So its not easy to predict anything.

> But this would violate
> Gurmat which preaches that this human form is the
> highest possible form - Nanak Mer Sareer ka...

There is no danger for the Eternal Truths. But for the interpretations, yes. Scientific discoveries like God particle or others keep on taking place no matter what someone wishes.

> The theory of evolution is a theory for atheists
> and it does not befit Gursikhs to subscribe to
> this atheist manmukhi theory. Gurmat is Supreme of
> all theories.

Gurmat is not a theory for me. Its a path. That is why Sikh place of congregation and worship is known as Gurudwara. Dwara is door. And Gurmat is the path.

Kulbir Singh Wrote:
> Why have you interpreted this Pankiti in such
> complicated way when the meaning is so
> straightforward? Where did you get the words
> "prakriya, method, system" etc when there is no
> mention of this in the Pankiti.

These words are meant to convey the idea. I am not saying these words are there in the line. They refer to the process or cycle of birth and deaths.


> in saying that the system does not increase or
> decrease. The Medni that has 84 Lakh life forms
> does not increase or decrease i.e. the number of
> Joonis stay the same.

If the joonis remain the same what about the extinct species like Dinosaurs? If they have become dormant then they have become unavailable for those that deserve that jooni. That blows a big hole in the karma system does'nt it? How would a jeev with a particular set of karma which deserves a particular joon get it if it is dormant or unavailable?

> So this means that all of sudden a the alleged
> predecessor of the homosapien gave birth to a
> homosapien and all of sudden this homosapien had
> Dasam Duaar and Nabh Kamal etc.

Not all of a sudden, they were born to predecessors who are almost humans but with only slight difference which made them an earlier species. And many of them were born but only some mated and therefore left offsprings while others could not.

And Nabh Kamal etc are not physical organs. They are spiritual things. Lets not refer to them as physical parts of body. I am not disputing there existence. Just saying that they are spiritual parts and therefore are not outwardly observable

> And please tell us
> if this homosapien was a male or female. How did
> this homosapien reproduce? Are you suggesting that
> there was another chemical reaction and a genetic
> mutation accident thereby producing another
> homosapien and that too of the opposite sex? The
> odds of this happening are next to none.

Odds have been worked out by scientific world. And for a long time now. I am not suggesting anything new and the onus of proving the whole theory does not lie with me. I could argue the same thing by challengin you to show me Dasam Duar. You might then refer me to Gurbani or maybe a saint's writings in which case you would be referring me to a separate authority than your own self. Similarly I cannot bring proof of each and everything to you because this is a huge scientific topic. I shall have to say look for proof online or maybe talk to a university professor who would have better resources.

>
> 2. If you say that the same mother (predecessor)
> gave birth to twins and these twins happened to be
> one male and one female; then too the problem is
> how did they reproduce? Did the brother and sister
> mate to have babies? This is a disgusting
> occurence. Vaheguru would never have allowed the
> start of his Ashraf-ul-Makhlooqaat (best of
> Joonis) to start off with such a huge sin as sex
> between siblings.

Are you talking of the same Waheguru who allows gang-rape and torture and mass murders ? If that Waheguru had problem with incest at some point has he become okay with it these days? The worst of indulgence is taking place these days, is Waheguru is okay with it? Or are you saying incest is more bad if done in the beginning but if it happens now it can be dealt with?

> 3. By this theory you have to assume that the
> non-human predecessor of the human, gave birth to
> a human male and female. But this is impossible. A
> dog can give birth only to a dog and a cat only to
> a cat. So much so that within the Joonis, the
> Jeevs can give birth to very similar jeevs e.g. a
> Black couple cannot give birth to a White child
> and a Chinese couple cannot give birth to a
> Punjabi child. So then how could the alleged
> non-human predecessor of the human give birth to a
> human?

The predecessors were not vastly different. There were slight genetic variations.

> Vaheguru under his Will may save anyone and
> perish anyone as well.

Yes of course. I did not dispute that.

>Teeraths are 68 only and over the time they have developed more or less
> Teeraths as per different sects but the original
> are 68 only.

Which original ones are you referring to? There is no consensus. Which particular set is Guru ji referring to? This alone is proof enough that Guru ji uses these terms symbolically. And if 68 teeraths are fixed in number how did they increase? And if they did increase does this not make Gurbani inaccurate?

The fact is that all these figures have been used symbolically simply because they were in common currency at that time.