AL - Schooled in evolution by an excellent genomist

His theory isn’t that evolution occurs, or that a monkey gave birth to the human species. It was that changes occur due to natural selection. For instance, if it gets cold (really cold, like “an ice age”), those members of a species with thicker fur (or hair) are naturally selected for. (Those with insufficient fur freeze to death before they can reproduce the “less fur” genes.)

Galapagos finches changed from a single beak shape to whatever worked best on what the individual group ate.

Some ancestor of humans, for whatever reason, changed, over the millennia, along a different path than the one that led to chimpanzees.

Is it “true” that genetics change? And that some are better fit to live long enough to reproduce than others? (Which is all he said.) Yes, of course.

One of the originators of the Physical Evolution Theory, Dr. A. R. Wallace was the first to strike down the Social Evolution Theory. He rightly affirmed that: "The Veda admittedly the oldest book in the library of mankind contains the essential teachings of the most advanced religious thinkers and is a vast system of religious teachings which are pure and lofty."

He further wrote in "Social Environment and Moral Progress," strongly refuting the social and moral evolution theory:

"In the earliest records which have come down to us from the past, we find ample indications that accepted standard of morality and the conduct resulting from these were in no degree inferior to those which prevail today, though in some respects, they were different from ours. The wonderful collection of hymns known as the Vedas are a vast system of religious teachings as pure and lofty as those of the finest portions of the Hebrew Scriptures. Its authors were fully our equals in their conception of the universe and the Deity expressed in the finest poetic language."- Evolution Debunked

Wallace was a naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist, biologist and illustrator - mot qualified, in any way, to speak of sociology or religion in any form. What he said is the musings of any educated man of the mid to late 19th century, no more.

You keep making your claim all over the web - but it’s just religious claptrap, pushing the Vedas (not “veda” - a veda is “a collection of Sanskrit poems or hymns”) the way fundamentalist Christians push their version of the Bible. You won’t convince anyone who’s not already Hindu.

Well Einstein was a scientist, unsatisfied, he went further “Science without religion is lame;….”, so why is it different with Wallace who was everything you say he was? You’re just looking for a reason to remain stupid is my guess. "It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows." Epictus

My “claim” is the truth, which has an answer for the origin of matter, the universe, human civilization, language and most important the functions of natural laws. "We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Albert Einstein - Can the science you know capable of doing that?

VEDA means “knowledge”, it comes from the root verb VED which means “to know”.

It can’t be the same as fundamentalist of any religion because the company of the wise are very few or almost extinct.

I’m not a Hindu - Debunking Hinduism

It’s not - neither one was more qualified to discuss religion than the average well-educated person. I wouldn’t have argued gravity with Einstein, but religion? Sure.

Well Al, if science doesn’t have the answers for the origin of the list above, how is my claim of truth not truth?

What average well-educated person? "Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education." Bertrand Russell - You’re included!

I’m representing both Einstein and Wallace on the same religion as mine, so why the hesitation to argue with me?

“…religion without science is blind.” I know you gentlemen can explain the “other part”, but I need an explanation for the first part.

Here is my post on Twitter - Einstein: "What I most admire about your art, is your universality. You don’t say a word, yet the world understands you!"

Chaplin: "True. But your glory is even greater! The whole world admires you, even though they don’t understand a word of what you say."

vjsn: “Science without religion is lame:...”

Scientist Lawrence Krauss: “It is not clear what he meant by that.”

My question is, if scientists can't understand what Einstein says, who can?

If science doesn’t have the answer, it doesn’t mean that your answer is correct. If there’s nothing making your answer impossible, it’s just one of many possibilities.

Why won’t I argue with you? Argue with what? Incorrect assertions?

Maybe, but how would the “stupid “ as Russel puts it, know what’s correct or false?

Isn’t it possible the “one” can make the difference if you have the courage or even humility to investigate it - The one true religion

Well, let’s start there! Point out the “incorrect assertions”.

PS - There were many before you who have failed to do so, instead they cowardly turned to blocking me.