Urmila dd writes me

Urmila devi dasi wrote me about my recent posts. She left comments on this blog here ["science"] and here ["Induction and Deduction"].

She also wrote me on a proprietary platform that is not accessible to non-members (facebook). I've extracted the conversation here to make it accessible to google indexing.

Urmila devi:

Haribol! I remember the wonderful time I had visiting your family. I've been reading/watching your blogs on evolution. You keep saying that there is evidence for genetic mutation and natural selection. Indeed no one doubts that both of these are real. But can you share the evidence for how these two things produce a new species, or a new useful and functional body part, etc.? I'm not familiar with even one piece of evidence in this regard and would be interested in what you have to share.

Sitapati das:
I think the underlying question you are asking is: "Why do people hold to a narrative where genetic mutation and natural selection produce new and functional body parts?"

If you read my blog posts carefully you will see that I make a distinction between the special theory of evolution, which is genetic mutation and natural selection, and the general theory of evolution, which is the development of new and very distinct species of a higher order of complexity from species of a lower order of complexity.

As I've stated, the special theory of evolution has some experimental evidence to verify it. As far as I am aware the general theory of evolution has no experimental evidence to verify it.

The strength and attraction of the general theory of evolution seems to be in the ability of its narrative to explain what we see in terms of known natural processes. It's more than explaining away a single creation event where the normal laws of nature are suspended - it accounts for the multiple extinction/repopulation events recorded in the fossil record.

That's not to say that it's "true", but as Thomas Kuhn points out, it takes a new paradigm, a framework that provides a superior fit with explaining observed phenomena and predicting as yet-unobserved ones, to overturn the previous one.

I got Michael Cremo's new book "Human Devolution" the other day. On the cover it promises a Vedic Alternative to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I am interested to see if it delivers on that promise.

Urmila devi:

Oops you're right that you do distinguish between micro and macro evolution or what you call special and general. But on at least one of your videos that's not clear. I like how you separate the two parts of evolution--1) life comes from chemicals and then 2) the first simple life form changes into all the varieties of past and current forms through processes that may include genetic mutation and isolation.

In my own preaching I note that while there is NO evidence for #2, this point is not intrinsically atheistic. Of course, most evolutionists say that this process is one of blind chance, which is an atheistic notion. Our main logical argument is with #1.

However, #2 is needed for #1 to even be remotely plausible. No one would believe that random material processes would create giraffes and oak trees directly from a "chemical soup."

I like that you are taking up this subject for preaching. Sometimes public blogs are a better place for finished work.

Sitapati das:
Try this: Arguing about Evolution update.

If you are interested this view gives you all the articles about evolution on my blog.