INTRODUCTION
TO THE 3rd EDITION
All compounded things obey ‘The Law of impermanence’
is a universal truth accepted by Buddhists. Yet, its impact on species
was somehow overlooked by them. Indeed do the Buddhist truly believe
that the ‘The Law of impermanence’ while affecting all
compounded things, excludes species. Pali texts are quite explicit
as to the sensory becoming process of species. Shockingly now we
discover that, a concise mechanism of speciation is also clearly
spelled out.
To those exploring Darwinism there is an obvious
gap, a missing link in the theory which does not explain satisfactorily
the branching out of the new species from the old. Darwinism tends
to be more mechanistic when it comes to the critical point of explaining
the quantum jump from one species to another. Indeed, how does X
species physically convert its genome and end up owning the genome
of Y species. Especially keeping in mind of the fact that, a routine
mutation, or a copying error of the cells in the higher taxa, will
not end in evolution but terminate in cancer.
After a year of sifting and probing through Pali
Texts, examining the subtle dialogues and comparatively assessing
their complex but inter-related meaning, I feel I have stumbled
upon a unique explanation that addresses the issue of Speciation.
During that investigative process, it dawned on me that the missing
link in Darwinism can be filled with a plausible Buddhist explanation.
Central to this explanation is the “sensory becoming principle”
which unlike the ‘natural selection’ hypothesis of Darwinian’s
offers an elaborate, rational and a logical explanation as to how
speciation is fired, i.e. the manner how X species metamorphoses
and becomes Y species in higher taxa. I present these findings in
the 6th chapter of this edition.
I am conscious of the fact that “sensory
becoming principle” has to wage a gigantic battle against
the established theory of “natural selection”. Over
the years the Darwinian Theory has gained an unstoppable momentum
of its own. The main opponents of Darwinism the ‘creationists’
have a field day, due to the inconsistencies in its “natural
selection” hypothesis.
I must confess it was hard to grasp and pin down
the concept and formulate speciation according to Buddha. If you
grasp the essentials of this work you will realise that life is
nothing but a sensory journey. I take full responsibility for whatever
shortcomings in its presentation.
I must also thank the editorial assistance given
to me by H.L.D. Mahindapala, former Editor of the Sunday Observer
(Sri Lanka) and Gehan Wejesinghe. For this I am in their debt.
Mahinda Weerasinghe
24-06-2005
SPECIATION ACCORDING TO THE BUDDHA
I will now return to confront that thorny question
as to how speciation is brought about in higher taxa. (Taxon - a
specific category or unit used in the biological system of animal
and plant classification that groups organisms by factors common
to each). A definitive answer to this query was intentionally avoided
in chapter 6, as “Sensory Becoming” principle was not
fully outlined at that stage.
The genomes of chimpanzee and human are 98.4% identical
(Some geneticists give this figure to be no more than 95%). Yet
evolutionists are still to document the incremental modifications
that transformed the genome of the chimp until it gradually metamorphosed
and ended as a human one. They side step from answering also the
other fundamental query: Since we split up and they went their own
way, how is that our first cousins still holding on to an evolutionary
‘status quo’, after three and half million odd years?
There are microevolution and macroevolution, biologists
explain. The first outlines all events and processes that occur
at or below the species level; such as the variability of population,
adaptive changes in population, geographic variation, speciation,
etc. And the latter expounds the processes that occur above the
species level; particularly the origin of new higher taxa, invasion
of new adaptive zones, acquisition of evolutionary novelties etc.
The two schools of thought never see eye to eye as a rule, and in
fact, are in a permanent state of disagreement. Their own findings
document discontinuity between the species level and that of higher
taxa. It is, therefore, not surprising to find Ernst Mayr, a respected
authority in the field, admitting that “there seems to be
an astonishing conflict between theory and observation” vis-à-vis
microevolution and macroevolution. (WHAT EVOLUTION IS by Ernst Mayr)
Internet is proliferating with all sorts of novel
findings, anomalies and peculiarities that fly in the face of Darwinian
version of evolution. I will touch a few of these obvious ones with
a minimum of elaboration. Those who are keen for more information
can access these on the net.
Language learning, scientist comment, is that what separates humans
from other species. Human infant, it seems is a language soaking
machine. Paradoxically many animals have rich conceptual systems
and ways of visualising the world, with rich and complex social
relationships. Yet they lack a system with which they can express
and convey their inner most feelings, sentiments and thoughts.
Human hearing differs dramatically from all other
apes. The relevant acoustic nuances in a spoken language are so
subtle, that these are impossible for them to perceive, distinguish
and register. Perhaps this handicap may help explain chimp’s
relative insensitiveness vis-à-vis verbal intercourse.
Even human eye has been designed expeditiously for the purpose of
visual communication. The widely exposed white sclera (white of
the eye) surrounding the darker iris makes it easy for onlookers
to discern the direction of gaze, a characteristically human trait,
which other primates have found unnecessary to develop. Such findings
indicate: (1) the exposed white sclera is void of pigmentation;
(2) humans possess the largest ratio of exposed sclera in the eye-outline;
(3) the eye out-outline is extraordinarily elongated in the horizontal
direction.
Comparison of eye coloration and facial coloration around the eye
suggest that, the dark coloration of exposed sclera of non-human
primates is an adaptation to conceal the direction of gaze from
targeted individuals and/or predators, and that the white sclera
enhances the gaze signal. The uniqueness of human eye morphology
among primates illustrates the unbridgeable gap that exists between
humans and other primates.
Brain size is another obvious dissimilarity the
scientists have now stumbled upon. Instrumented with it, we govern
the involuntary and voluntary functions, the sensory perceptions,
memory, emotions, consciousness, and intelligence. Darwinists are
still to clarify the purpose of this unusually large human brain,
and how it facilitates “natural selection”.
A recent study exposes the difficulties evolutionary
biologists are faced with, when they attempt to account for the
emergence of the human brain by natural processes. They studied
214 genes involved in human brain development and established, from
an evolutionary perspective, that these genes must have undergone
hyper-fast evolution to produce the large human brain with its advanced
cognitive capacities. In the words of one investigator: " To
accomplish so much in so little evolutionary time…requires
a selective process that is perhaps categorically different from
the typical processes of acquiring new biological traits. This type
of rapid and extensive genetic turn over makes little sense from
an evolutionary perspective, given the deleterious effects of most
mutations and the extensive complexity and integration of the biological
systems that make up the human brain. If anything, this type of
rapid evolution should be catastrophic”.
Walker and Shipman inform that out of all mammals
save one, the brain grows rapidly during gestation, but then grows
less rapidly after birth. What humans have accomplished by this
is, the stratagem of keeping the brain growing at the embryonic
rate for an added year subsequent to birth. As a result its independence
is sacrificed while exposing the infant to all sorts of hazards.
No wonder we find human infant has to be nursed, pampered and protected
for a minimum of two years post birth, an interval so extraordinarily
stretched in survival terms that, if other primates were to imitate,
they would simply be committing evolutionary hari-kari.
Researchers are now of the opinion that infants
are simply born too early in their development. The ‘premature
birth’ aids the offspring to glide through their mothers'
birth canals effortlessly. If contrary be the case, human procreation
then will dry up fast. Every other primate doubles their brain weight
from birth to adulthood. But due to the early birth, humans triple
their brain's growth rate. In fact this adds 12 months of “foetal”
growth outside the womb, a period filled with pitfalls and perils.
Such a prolonged childhood, burdens the parents with the added task
of monitoring, feeding and rendering the infant the much needed
security, though it also establishes a close physical and emotional
relationship with its parents.
Such findings do not help adherents of the Darwinian version of
evolution. Their protagonist challenge, why should natural selection
produce such impractical relatively hairless, white skinned Caucasian
race of humans with an in-built inability to fend for itself?
Creationists enumerate, a few obvious " advantages " that
humans have over the lower primates: larger brain size, speech/language,
communicative eyes, and bipedal locomotion. And go on to challenge:
how does each of these influence " an individual's reproductive
success " , especially if we are talking about many " micro
mutations " over a prolonged interval? Indeed what great benefits/advantages
is there in a 0.01% larger brain size, 0.01% greater speech ability,
0.01% more communicative eyes and 0.01% more bipedal locomotion,
for the individual in the “survival of the fittest”
scheme of things? Silence of their’s is simply deafening!
No wonder proponents of “magical creation”
categorize these features simply as " fortuitous mutations "
or " macro mutations " ! There are many other puzzles Darwinists
side-step, such as how and why did man loose his body hair. An explanation
compatible with “natural selection” is yet to be put
forward.
Indirectly though, some investigators are converging
on a logical explanation, though still without grasping its implications.
They are now beginning to conclude that sexuality may be a reason.
In fact the subject was covered in juicy detail by Desmond Morris,
who highlighted unique human features such as extended foreplay,
extended copulation and the orgasm. One particular anomaly is that
the human female is always ‘in heat’, though she can
conceive only during a few days each month. All these observable
facts are absolutely incompatible with the Darwinian version of
producing its proto-types, so that the copies can be sent out in
time and space, for what earthly reason that “their duplicates”
be scattered in time and space, is also quite hazy.
Now investigators are homing in on the anomaly
of the male penis, which is by far the largest erect penis of any
living primate. The geneticist Steve Jones has noted it as a mystery
which is ‘unanswered by science’, a point which is echoed
by Jared Diamond: “... we descend to a glaring failure: the
inability of twentieth-century science to formulate an adequate
Theory of Penis Length... astonishing as it seems, important functions
of the human penis remain obscure.” ( Why is Sex Fun?: The
Evolution of Human Sexuality by Diamond, Jared).
No wonder, four out of ten Americans find it hard
to believe that they are related to the apes. Thanks to the half
baked Darwinian version of evolution, we find creationist going
round the country propagating that the good Lord has created, man
as man, and pig as pig.
Yet sooner or later Darwinists will need to confront
a still more vital question. Why did the chimp execute such a profound
genetic restructuring and emerged as a human? Was it purely through
a haphazard accidental process? Though at this point of history
it looks to me as if ‘this fittest’ primate will succumb
within the next half a millennium to a lower form of existence,
but the chimp probably may limp on further.
Any accounting evolutionists offer, should obviously
be compatible with their ‘gradualness of evolution’
hypothesis. We are inundated with literature, clarifying theoretically
how mutation and speciation occur, utilizing abstract words and
phrases, specially coined for the purpose. Nevertheless we remain
unenlightened. Earlier evolutionists were of the opinion that mutation
would automatically produce new species. That idea has been conveniently
dropped now. They claim now “speciation” to mean ‘the
acquisition of effective isolating mechanisms’. This was neither
here nor there, vague, hollow and slippery as declaring that a square
is circular.
So should we assume that, some historical chimp,
at some point in time, has accidentally metamorphosed into human
by mutating and modifying his genetic machinery? If so, precisely
what mechanism transubstantiated the chimp’s genetic code
that he acquired the one now we call human? Obviously, one is either
equipped with a genome of a chimp or one that of a man! In other
words one is either a chimp or one is human. When considering this
question we also have to keep in mind, the most vital factor; that
though mutations are considered to be the driving force of evolution,
a copying error in the cell usually ends in terminal cancer in higher
taxa.
So let’s peep at this riddle from another
angle. Bacteria are documented as having a rather small genome (0.004e9
compared to Man who has 3.5e9).
Biologists have a good idea how new strains of
bacteria evolved. Indeed when penicillin was first introduced in
the 1940s it was effective against most types of bacterial infections.
At the time it was welcomed as a medical miracle. Discovered by
Alexander Fleming in 1928, Penicillin eradicated many types of disease-causing
bacteria. But just four years after drug companies began mass-producing
penicillin in 1943, microbes began to emerge that could resist penicillin.
The notion that we had licked the bacterial infections was fast
becoming a thing of the past. Researchers discovered that, penicillin
kills bacteria by attaching to bacterial cell walls, thus destroying
a key part of the wall. The walls collapse and the bacteria eradicated.
But the resistant strains, either have altered their cell walls
so penicillin couldn’t bind to it, or produced enzymes that
dismantled the antibiotic.
To their horror doctors soon discovered that new
strains of bacteria have evolved against whom penicillin was ineffective.
Indeed, those early 1940ies bacteria, vulnerable to penicillin,
have mutated and upgraded their genetic upholstery until they ended
up as penicillin resisting bacteria.
The evolutionists are still to register the repercussions
these findings will have on classical Darwinian assumptions. Indeed,
due to such strange behaviour of bacteria, we have netted some irrepressible
facts.
1.) That the bacterial transformation did not stretch
out into thousands of years or even a few decades, but a few years,
thus dismantling the gradualness of evolution hypothesis.
2.) Mutation of the bacterial cell occurred not
through a stumbling accidental process. Indeed bacterial transformation
indicates that, its out come was targeted and premeditated. Or else
how could the bacteria mutate within such a short interval, surely
not through a copying error of the cell. We especially note, the
mutation did not occur in some isolated pockets, but wherever the
penicillin was used. So the result can not be called a freak of
nature.
3.) These findings established once and for all
that, mutation is immediately directional and it’s fired/triggered
by necessity.
What becomes crystal clear is that, individual
bacteria have stressed and strained their genetic machinery and
given battle to avoid extermination. Mutation here was not an accident
or a chance happening, but one brought about through a premeditated
exertion.
This quantum jump in bacterial evolution helps
us get a glimpse of what speciation is all about. Indeed by fusing
elements of the sensory becoming principle, we can effortlessly
answer all of the above stated anomalies. First I will recap some
ingredients vital to the theory of becoming: ‘the theory of
impermanence’, ‘actions are dictated by sensory necessity’,
‘sensory extension is a result of stress and strain on the
genetic machinery, these being activities fired through sensory
expediency’, ‘desire and self-centeredness is a core
irrepressible force’, ‘action and reaction give rise
to cause and effect’ and indeed ‘pleasure and pain principle
under pining this operation’. When we compound these elements,
we can clearly identify the emerging, ‘mechanism of speciation’.
In order to make the explanation still more evident,
I will now place three quotes from the scriptures, which I have
already made use of in this work. Only here I will place them in
a logical sequence, that jointly it projects a formulation that
has never been deciphered or perceived before. Amalgamated together
these spells out how a new species makes its debut in the world.
First quote answers the core question, what is
it that’s born?
“But master Gotama, at the time when
a being lays aside this body and rises up again in another body,
-what does master Gotama declare to be the fuel for that?”
“At the time, Vaccha, when a being lays aside this body and
rises up again in another body, for that I declare Tanha (craving)
to be the grasping force (Upa-dana). Indeed, Vaccha, on that occasion
Tanha (craving) becomes the grasping force (Upa-dana)”.
(Sanyutta Nikaya, The Salayatana book, iv, 398), translated
as The Book of the Kindred Sayings IV by F.L. Woodward),
The second speaks of the actors involved in the
creative process, and under what circumstances (field).
We hear Buddha explain concisely in, Majjhima Nikãya, Mahatanhasankhayasutta,
(I. 265); translated as The Middle Length Sayings 1 by I. B. Honer:
Monks, it is on the conjunction of three things that there is conception.
If there is here coitus of the parents, but it is not the mother’s
season and the gandhabba is not present for so long there is no
conception. If there is here coitus of the parents and it is the
mother’s season, but the gandhabba is not present—for
so long there is not conception. But if monks, there is here coitus
of the parents and it is the mother’s season and the gandhabba
is present, it is on the conjunction of these three things that
there is conception. Then, monks, the mother for nine or ten months
carries the foetus in her womb with great anxiety for her heavy
burden. Then, monks, at the end of nine or ten months the mother
gives birth with great anxiety for her heavy burden. When it is
born, she feeds it with her own life-blood.
Finally the third answers; under what conditions
the mind and body is sustained or reformed and extended: -
(Sanyutta Nikaya, cowdung, page 122 translated as The Book of the
Kindred Sayings III by F. L. Woodward),
“By attachment to body, brethren, consciousness,
if it get a standing, may persist. With body for its object, with
body for its platform, seeking means of enjoyment, it may come by
growth, increase, abundance. With the activities for its object,
with the activities for its platform, seeking a means of enjoyment,
it may come by growth, increase, abundance.”
We are more than ‘enlightened’ we are
stunned by this unique piece of information found only in the Buddhist
scriptures. Not through an intervention by some unknown God, without
a soul, not by chance, not by accident that a new species manifest
itself. It is fired by a powerful force called ‘desire’.
Refreshingly, Buddha did not stoop to utilise fancy expressions
to expound this subtle mechanisms of speciation. It simply staggers
our imagination that he offered this ground-breaking (and more than
modern) concept, well over 2550 years ago.
*********
Expunged material
**********
(Speciation has been formulated by 24-06-2005) |
