Darwin had answered both the questions and he brought out facts to such an extent that if they are all fully martialled together very well they can easily refute the theory of special creation. He made the detailed study of all the numerous species in the world. That was his great remarkable feat that he expressed in his life and he put down the sequence of species in a very remarkable manner but admitted also that there are gaps. He admitted, but having admitted he tried explain as follows: Some of these intermediate species must have come into being, but may have perished very quickly being very intermediate, not capable of resisting, struggling enough to survive they might have quickly perished, so quickly that the remnants of them are not easily discoverable. We don’t find remains of the dead bodies of these intermediate species. Of many species you can find petrified bodies, even today, but of many species you don’t find. His argument was that they might have been very temporary and they might have perished.
Secondly, he said that in the process of evolution at a certain stage there seems to be what may be called mutation. A transition from one stage to the other may be so rapid and may be so very radical that the next step may seem to be quite different from the earlier one. Take for example, the caterpillar; a caterpillar moves about on a leaf as a small little thing and eating the elements of the leaf and surviving. And suddenly after some time it goes into state of swoon becomes a cocoon, goes into sleep and after some time suddenly, you find it flies away as a butterfly. It’s a mutation, something suddenly happens and this is a discoverable, an observable phenomenon. If you don’t find out some intermediate steps, it is quite possible that some of these intermediate steps did not exist. What is intermediate between the caterpillar and the butterfly? There is nothing discoverable at all. It’s a real mutation, so there may be absence of these intermediate steps all together and therefore, he said you do not find what we call missing links. You call them missing links but they may not be missing at all.
With regard to the second argument, why don’t we see today apes becoming human beings? His answer is that every species at a given stage of development struggles against the environment. In this struggle, it goes on pressing, pressing, and develops a new organ, not in all the members of the species, in some members of the species. If there is a big herd of human beings today, not everybody would become something different. Not all the apes become human beings but in the herd of apes some of them succeed in developing some kind of a brain which is quite distinguishable.
The animal for example is not able to stand erect; Orangutan is able to stand erect at least. But not as erect as a human being, so hip is developed in the evolutionary movement, physical aid is given as it were, so is able to stand erect and is able to face the nature much better the whole vision, the view changes with a rising to the erect position of human being, − the whole world view changes. If you only go on looking with your horizontal perception, the world does not look as great as we human beings, who can now stand erect and look at the world.
We are able to face the world and struggle against the world much better. So once this organ is developed in some members then this urge is satisfied. Once it is satisfied, it dies out. Because a species is created where the urge has been fulfilled, that is why we don’t see today apes becoming human beings because that urge has been satisfied, a new species has come into existence.
Once a new species comes into an existence the urge of the lower animal to face the problem is extinguished, it remains within the boundaries of its own nature and survives to the extent to which it can, because a better instrument has already been fabricated. But he pointed out that man is the highest now. He has all the possibilities of surviving, he has all the capacities, so nothing more than man is visualisable, we cannot visualise anything more than that. This aspect can be questioned. Is it a fact that man has everything that is needed for further development, but as far as his theory is concerned these two basic questions he was able to answer. Therefore, as against the other theory of special creation this theory seems to be much sounder.
Then there have been many further developments which have tried to explain the details of evolution, particularly with regard to heredity as a carrier of evolution. A parent acquires certain capacities in his life time and this is transmitted to the progeny automatically by heredity. The offspring does not need to make that effort which the parent had made to acquire those qualities or characteristics. The parent had made a big effort, acquired the capacities and then the offspring gets automatically. This is called the law of heredity; the acquired characteristics are transmitted in the progeny this is also discovered as the law in the evolution. The evolution is of such a nature that whenever the parent organism acquires certain capacities then they are transmitted into progeny automatically. Certain things which are acquired in the parent become instincts in the offspring. Instincts are inborn capacities you don’t need to cultivate them; they are there already available to you.
It is argued that scientific theories like Darwin’s theory may remain valid for some time, tomorrow it may be thrown away, who knows, because in science not a single theory can be said to be permanently valid. New facts can come up and they can be thrown out tomorrow.