Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Are the cave fish that lost eyes the same species as those that did not?
Click to expand...
No. They do not interbreed.

On a general point, there is nothing in the theory of evolution that forbids loss of function. There are many such examples: cave fish, internal parasites and male Angler Fish are three that come to mind. You are essentially wasting your time on the “loss of function” point. Any biologist will shrug and say “Yeah. So?”

rossum
 
They are “adaptations,” but you don’t see big prides of ligers and herds of giraffebras running around Africa, do you? It’s almost like they are. . . different species or something.
 
Last edited:
One wonders if many Catholics would defend other tenets of the faith with as much gusto as they do “evolution.”
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Is evolution a tenet of the Catholic faith? Good show!
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps “other” was a poor choice of words, but there are indeed a great number of Darwinian Chardinians in the Church who seem to accept Darwin alongside the Saints, Fathers, and centuries of Church teaching. Origin of Species seems to be held in equal standing to the Holy Bible amongst them. No doubt many are convinced it is a teaching on the level of the Assumption or Immaculate Conception.
 
rossum said:
No. They do not interbreed.

On a general point, there is nothing in the theory of evolution that forbids loss of function. There are many such examples: cave fish, internal parasites and male Angler Fish are three that come to mind. You are essentially wasting your time on the “loss of function” point. Any biologist will shrug and say “Yeah. So?”
Click to expand...
You are in agreement with devolution.
 
buffalo said:
You are in agreement with devolution.
Click to expand...
Evolution may increase function, decrease function or leave function unchanged.
  • Whales can hold their breath for a lot longer than their ancestors: an increase in function.
  • Tapeworms have no digestive sysyem: a loss in function.
  • Chimps and humans have identical Cytochrome-Cs: an unchanged function.
Your point about loss of function/devolution is irrelevant.

rossum
 
“Devolution” isn’t a thing. You are still stuck thinking that evolution is meant to represent progress toward an ideal goal-- an archetypal perfect Man or Animal or whatever.

Evolution is just a description of how the genetics and phenotypes of species interact with the environment over time. There’s no “better,” no right path, no wrong turns. Things live, they reproduce, and they die-- and the things that exist at one time are a little bit different, on the whole, that the ones before them.

If a species ends up worse off than it was, perhaps due to the spread of an unfortunate mutation, this is still “evolution,” not “devolution.”
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
“Devolution” isn’t a thing. You are still stuck thinking that evolution is meant to represent progress toward an ideal goal-- an archetypal perfect Man or Animal or whatever.
Click to expand...
No, I do not think that. Evolution changes organisms to better fit into their environment. As the environment changes, so evolution changes the organisms to better adapt.
Evolution is just a description of how the genetics and phenotypes of species interact with the environment over time. There’s no “better,” no right path, no wrong turns. Things live, they reproduce, and they die-- and the things that exist at one time are a little bit different, on the whole, that the ones before them.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is an excellent description. Why do you confuse it by saying “devolution” instead of “evolution”?

rossum
 
I think you are confusing me with buffalo. Surely you must have noticed that he suddenly seemed to be making sense? 😃
 
Last edited:
I googled “devolution.” It turns out it IS a thing-- or rather WAS a thing in the 1800’s and even early 1990s.

Once buffalo catches up a couple hundred years in his World Book Almanac, he might get what your’e talking about! 😃
 
It doesn’t have to be empirically proved. It was a metaphor to emphasise
the point I was making was that there is no coflict between believing that God made us and believing in evolution.
 
Last edited:
I wasn’t commenting on whether Darwinism is good or bad science. I was commenting on the fact that many atheists give the theory of evolution as a reason for not believing that God made us and many people who believe in God seem to deny evolution because they see it as a challenge to their belief in God. I am trying to point out that there is no conflict between the two beliefs; whatever their merits might be. You can believe in both.
 
Last edited:
I think evolution is bad science.

One can believe in unicorns and be faithful to the teachings of the Church.
 
buffalo said:
Micro-evolution is not an issue. Macro is.
Click to expand...
Why? Where in the Bible does it say that all the existing species of kangaroos did not macro-evolve from a single pair of kangaroos on the Ark?

If you do not allow macro-evolution then your version of the Ark had to be big enough to hold every recently extinct (think Dodos) and extant species, as well as enough food for most of those species for one year.

Much easier to have a single pair of kangaroos (or even marsupials) and allow macro-evolution to take over from there.

You are not following the modern creationist line here, buffalo. Macro-evolution between species is allowed within a kind. You need to read more Answers in Genesis to keep up. Yes, I know that is not a Catholic site.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top