Genesis v Evolution

[cpayne]

Dear Brad: I was going to respond on a point-by-point basis. However, after reflection, I just want to say this: If you go back over your post carefully, you will see that most of it is an ad hominem attack on those who disagree with you.

When you say there is “no” evidence for a common ancestry, how much DNA research are you taking into consideration? Which researchers are you referring to whose research is no good for the purposes of “evidence”?

By the way, evolutionary theory does make predictions all the time which can be falsified. It is a genuine theory. A good example would be predictions regarding the distribution of alleles in a population.

 

[cpayne]

I think the main reason some of us keep getting characterized as “pro” evolution and “con” the Bible is that those who think they are writing “pro” the Bible keep making basic factual mistakes which need correction. However, since correction of scientific mistakes is not really my primary function here, I think I’m bowing out at this point. May God’s best be with all. Love and peace, cp

 

[rossum]

For scientific careers.

Wrong. The biologist who shows that the theory of evolution is wrong will most likely get a Nobel Prize. Science advances by replacing good theories with better ones.

Has nothing to do with proving evolution.

But has a lot to do with disproving a literal interpretation of Genesis.

No evidence for this most especially in the fossil record.

This is so wrong it is laughable. See The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

There is no evidence that life came from non-live through evolution.

Agreed, but since no biologist claims that it does, your point is useless. The process of life arising from non-life is called abiogenesis and is separate from evolution. Evolution deals with living populations and so cannot apply when there is nothing alive. I should also point out that creationists have no explanation for the origin of life. You need to think about that question carefully before giving me a knee-jerk response.

There is no evidence that one species became another species through evolution.

Wrong. Chrysopa carnea and Chrysopa downesi are two North American lacewings. C. carnea is light green in summer, brown in autumn and breeds in winter and summer. It lives in deciduous trees, hence the colour change. C. downesi is dark green and breeds in spring. It lives in pine trees, hence the constant dark green colouring. These two do not breed in nature since they live in different habitats and breed at different times. Both morphologically and reproductively they are separate species.

There are three differences in their genes. One carries the colour difference and the other two control the time of breeding. Given that the range of C. downesi is entirely contained within that of C. carnea, it is likely that C. downesi is the newer species having originated from a single change in the gene for colour that allowed it to exploit a different habitat in pine trees. Since the cross-breeds have an intermediate colour they are not camouflaged in either pines or deciduous trees so there is selection pressure against them. The changes to the breeding cycle would probably have come later, having an advantage in reducing the number of cross-breeds which represent a wasted effort in evolutionary terms. Some future change in one or the other may render the cross-breeds sterile as a side effect and eventually the two will be unable to produce viable offspring.

Three mutations to form a new species.

There is no evidence of the non-fit mutations that didn’t make it through the process of evolution.

There are plenty - haemophilia for example.

A religious attack doesn’t prove evolution. This is Dawkinism.

On the contrary, it is Thomism:“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”

Source: St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica

Not a good post. Your sources are misinforming you.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

This is so wrong it is laughable. See The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

I find no issue at all with common descent (that we all share common building blocks of life). Why would anyone be surprised we are genetically related since DNA is the basic building block for living things?

God certainly could have used these building blocks supernaturally.

 

[wildleafblower]

An Introduction to the History and Basic Scientific Concepts in Evolution by our very own mastermind Alec MacAndrew (hecd2) is an excellent resource.
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
And, **Understanding the Human Genome Project ** is too!
1859: Darwin publishes On the Origin of Species, proposing continual evolution of species
1865: Mendel’s Peas
1869: DNA First Isolated
1879: Mitosis Observed
1900s
1900: Rediscovery of Mendel’s work
1902: Orderly Inheritance of Disease Observed
1902: Chromosome Theory of Heredity
1909: The Word Gene Coined
1911: Fruit Flies Illuminate the Chromosome Theory
1940’s
1941: One Gene, One Enzyme
1943: X-ray Diffraction of DNA
1944: DNA is “Transforming Principle”
1944: Jumping Genes
1950’s
1952: Genes are Made of DNA
1953: DNA Double Helix
1955: 46 Human Chromosomes
1955: DNA Copying Enzyme
1956: Cause of Disease Traced to Alteration
1958: Semiconservative Replication of DNA
1959: Chromosome Abnormalities Identified
1960’s
1961: mRNA Ferries Information
1961: First Screen for Metabolic Defect in Newborns
1966: Genetic Code Cracked
1968: First Restriction Enzymes Described
1970’s
1972: First Recombinant DNA
1973: First Animal Gene Cloned
1975-77: DNA Sequencing
1976: First Genetic Engineering Company
1977: Introns Discovered
1980’s
1981-82: First Transgenic Mice and Fruit Flies
1982: GenBank Database Formed
1983: First Disease Gene Mapped
1983: PCR Invented
1986: First Time Gene Positionally Cloned
1987: First Human Genetic Map
1987: YACs Developed
1989: Microsatelites, New Genetic Markers
1989: Sequence-tagged Sites, Another Marker
**1990’s **
1990-1994
1990: Launch of the Human Genome Project
1990: ELSI Founded
1990: Research on BACs
1991: ESTs, Fragments of Genes
1992: Second-generation Genetic Map of Human Genome
1992: Data Release Guidelines Established
1993: NEW HGP Five-year Plan
1994: FLAVR SAVR Tomato
1994: Detailed Human Genetic Map
1994: Microbial Genome Project
1995-1996
1995: Ban on Genetic Discrimination in Workplace
1995: Two Microbial Genomes Sequenced
1995: Physical Map of Human Genome Completed
1996: International Strategy Meeting on Human Genome Sequencing
1996: Mouse Genetic Map Completed
1996: Yeast Genome Sequenced
1996: Archaea Genome Sequenced
1996: Health Insurance Discrimination Banned
1996: 280,000 Expressed Sequence Tags (ESTs)
1996: Human Gene Map Created
1996: Human DNA Sequence Begins
1997-1999
1997: Bermuda Meeting Affirms Principle of Data Release
1997: E. coli Genome Sequenced
1997: Recommendations on Genetic Testing
1998: Private Company Announces Sequencing Plan
1998: M. Tuberculosis Bacterium Sequenced
1998: Committee on Genetic Testing
1998: HGP Map Includes 30,000 Human Genes
1998: New HGP Goals for 2003
1998: SNP Initiative Begins
1998: Genome of Roundworm C. elegans Sequenced
1999: Full-scale Human Genome Sequencing
1999: Chromosome 22
2000 - 2001
2000: Free Access to Genomic Information
2000: Chromosome 21
2000: Working Draft
2000: Drosophila and Arabidopsis genomes sequenced
2000: Executive Order Bans Genetic Descrimination in the Federal Workplace
2000: Yeast Interactome Published
2000: Fly Model of Parkinson’s Disease Reported
2001: First Draft of the Human Genome Sequence Released
2001: RNAi Shuts Off Mammalian Genes
2001: FDA Approves Genetics-based Drug to Treat Leukemia
**2002 -2003 **
2002: Mouse Genome Sequenced
2002: Researchers Find Genetic Variation Associated with Prostate Cancer
2002: Rice Genome Sequenced
2002: The International HapMap Project is Announced
2002: The Genomes to Life Program is Launched
2002: Researchers Identify Gene Linked to Bipolar Disorder
2003: Human Genome Project Completed
2003: Fiftieth Anniversary of Watson and Crick’s Description of the Double Helix
2003: The First National DNA Day Celebrated
2003: ENCODE Program Begins
2003: Premature Aging Gene Identified
**2004 - The Future **
2004: Rat and Chicken Genomes Sequenced
2004: FDA Approves First Microarray
2004: Refined Analysis of Complete Human Genome Sequence
2004: Surgeon General Stresses Importance of Family History
2005: Chimpanzee Genomes Sequenced
2005: HapMap Project Completed
2005: Trypanosomatid Genomes Sequenced
2005: Dog Genomes Sequenced
2006: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Project Started
2006: Second Non-human Primate Genome is Sequenced
2006: Initiatives to Establish the Genetic and Environmental Causes of Common Diseases Launched
The Future
genome.gov/25019887
http://www.genome.gov/25019887

For those I have yet to respond to (u know who you are, I’ll return next month. I’m offically on vacation Yahoo! Bless ya goodwill to everyone!

 

[drpmjhess]

Brad, science has progressed beyond where it stood in the days of Thomas Aquinas, you know.
Petrus

 

[wildleafblower]

An Introduction to the History and Basic Scientific Concepts in Evolution by our very own mastermind Alec MacAndrew (hecd2) is an excellent resource.
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
Intro to Evolution, Genetics and Molecular Biology
And, **Understanding the Human Genome Project ** is too!
1859: Darwin publishes On the Origin of Species, proposing continual evolution of species
1865: Mendel’s Peas
1869: DNA First Isolated
1879: Mitosis Observed
1900s
1900: Rediscovery of Mendel’s work
1902: Orderly Inheritance of Disease Observed
1902: Chromosome Theory of Heredity
1909: The Word Gene Coined
1911: Fruit Flies Illuminate the Chromosome Theory
1940’s
1941: One Gene, One Enzyme
1943: X-ray Diffraction of DNA
1944: DNA is “Transforming Principle”
1944: Jumping Genes
1950’s
1952: Genes are Made of DNA
1953: DNA Double Helix
1955: 46 Human Chromosomes
1955: DNA Copying Enzyme
1956: Cause of Disease Traced to Alteration
1958: Semiconservative Replication of DNA
1959: Chromosome Abnormalities Identified
1960’s
1961: mRNA Ferries Information
1961: First Screen for Metabolic Defect in Newborns
1966: Genetic Code Cracked
1968: First Restriction Enzymes Described
1970’s
1972: First Recombinant DNA
1973: First Animal Gene Cloned
1975-77: DNA Sequencing
1976: First Genetic Engineering Company
1977: Introns Discovered
1980’s
1981-82: First Transgenic Mice and Fruit Flies
1982: GenBank Database Formed
1983: First Disease Gene Mapped
1983: PCR Invented
1986: First Time Gene Positionally Cloned
1987: First Human Genetic Map
1987: YACs Developed
1989: Microsatelites, New Genetic Markers
1989: Sequence-tagged Sites, Another Marker
**1990’s **
1990-1994
1990: Launch of the Human Genome Project
1990: ELSI Founded
1990: Research on BACs
1991: ESTs, Fragments of Genes
1992: Second-generation Genetic Map of Human Genome
1992: Data Release Guidelines Established
1993: NEW HGP Five-year Plan
1994: FLAVR SAVR Tomato
1994: Detailed Human Genetic Map
1994: Microbial Genome Project
1995-1996
1995: Ban on Genetic Discrimination in Workplace
1995: Two Microbial Genomes Sequenced
1995: Physical Map of Human Genome Completed
1996: International Strategy Meeting on Human Genome Sequencing
1996: Mouse Genetic Map Completed
1996: Yeast Genome Sequenced
1996: Archaea Genome Sequenced
1996: Health Insurance Discrimination Banned
1996: 280,000 Expressed Sequence Tags (ESTs)
1996: Human Gene Map Created
1996: Human DNA Sequence Begins
1997-1999
1997: Bermuda Meeting Affirms Principle of Data Release
1997: E. coli Genome Sequenced
1997: Recommendations on Genetic Testing
1998: Private Company Announces Sequencing Plan
1998: M. Tuberculosis Bacterium Sequenced
1998: Committee on Genetic Testing
1998: HGP Map Includes 30,000 Human Genes
1998: New HGP Goals for 2003
1998: SNP Initiative Begins
1998: Genome of Roundworm C. elegans Sequenced
1999: Full-scale Human Genome Sequencing
1999: Chromosome 22
2000 - 2001
2000: Free Access to Genomic Information
2000: Chromosome 21
2000: Working Draft
2000: Drosophila and Arabidopsis genomes sequenced
2000: Executive Order Bans Genetic Descrimination in the Federal Workplace
2000: Yeast Interactome Published
2000: Fly Model of Parkinson’s Disease Reported
2001: First Draft of the Human Genome Sequence Released
2001: RNAi Shuts Off Mammalian Genes
2001: FDA Approves Genetics-based Drug to Treat Leukemia
**2002 -2003 **
2002: Mouse Genome Sequenced
2002: Researchers Find Genetic Variation Associated with Prostate Cancer
2002: Rice Genome Sequenced
2002: The International HapMap Project is Announced
2002: The Genomes to Life Program is Launched
2002: Researchers Identify Gene Linked to Bipolar Disorder
2003: Human Genome Project Completed
2003: Fiftieth Anniversary of Watson and Crick’s Description of the Double Helix
2003: The First National DNA Day Celebrated
2003: ENCODE Program Begins
2003: Premature Aging Gene Identified
**2004 - The Future **
2004: Rat and Chicken Genomes Sequenced
2004: FDA Approves First Microarray
2004: Refined Analysis of Complete Human Genome Sequence
2004: Surgeon General Stresses Importance of Family History
2005: Chimpanzee Genomes Sequenced
2005: HapMap Project Completed
2005: Trypanosomatid Genomes Sequenced
2005: Dog Genomes Sequenced
2006: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Project Started
2006: Second Non-human Primate Genome is Sequenced
2006: Initiatives to Establish the Genetic and Environmental Causes of Common Diseases Launched
The Future
genome.gov/25019887
http://www.genome.gov/25019887

For those I have yet to respond to (u know who you are, I’ll return next month. I’m offically on vacation Yahoo! Bless ya goodwill to everyone!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Well, to be honest, I believe in an Old Earth, evolution for all other biological beings, but not humans. I’ve alway seen humans as something special, created special by God. I believe that humans were created by God outside the evolutionary process.

Awww, But we are special! We are the first, as far as we know whose level of sentience allows us to envision God. I can imagine the “tear” in God’s eye as finally His/Her children had awakened to speak with Him.

There is nothing in the concept of evolution which takes away from the wonder of God’s universe/s…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

And yet Pope Benedict recently stated that evolution cannot be scientifically proven.

There is little in science that can be proved beyond all doubt. Most accept a working model that is not in conflict with the existing archeological record. Remember that there are many many disciplines within science that depend on or support evolution.

 

[drpmjhess]

Quite right, SpiritMeadow. But I go beyond Pope Noah: I reject human exceptionalism, the permitting of evolution up to the special formation of a humanid body, with God then popping in an immortal soul, so that a par of pre-human parents suddenly and magically have human offspring qualitatively differnet from themselves. It is theologically more humble, more beautiful, to envision the evolution of life all the way up to us today, who are capable of a moral and spiritual relationship with God.
Petrus

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Whatever you may feel personally about how much of Genesis is myth, how much is legend, and how much is history, it is intellectually irresponsible for Roman Catholics to promote “young earth creationist” pseudoscience. Catholics who are themselves untutored as to how science actually works should not participate in deceiving others, particularly children. The effect of this is that when children grow up to learn how scientific theories actually work and that they have been deceived, they often misguidedly reject the Catholic faith as a whole. This is a tragedy. Thank goodness Pope Benedict seems to have worked through and beyond the Cardinal Schonborn nonsense about “intelligent design creationism.”

I get assaulted a lot with the Abiogenesis argument and the 2nd law of thermodynamics as anti-evolution “proofs”. I 'd appreciate a couple of short answers to deal with this, but have not the scientifc knowledge to do so.

 

[drpmjhess]

I get assaulted a lot with the Abiogenesis argument and the 2nd law of thermodynamics as anti-evolution “proofs”. I 'd appreciate a couple of short answers to deal with this, but have not the scientifc knowledge to do so.

SpiritMeadow, the problem with creationists (Prot or Papist) is that they lie. Duane Gish of ICR will be thoroughly refuted on a point of nonsense and move on to a different gullible audience, trotting out precisely the same lies he used before. Michael Behe has been shown to be a biochemical fraud by his peers many times over, but pops up from the coffin again and again. Sounds like you need a heart stake or a silver bullet!

There are many sites you could turn to, but the most useful and compendious is TalkOrigins, http://www.talkorigins.org/. The have an excellent site map at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html#where

Creationists argument from thermodynamics are demolished at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html.

Arguments from the impossibility of abiogenesis are demolished on this page: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

I hope this helps in your search for and defense of scientific truth, in the service of divine truth!

Prayerfully,
Petrus

 

[edwest2]

Creationists lie. Well, someone is lying. I will rely on the Church and only the Church as regards a definitive answer to this. Writing warm and fuzzy words about how God used evolution is beyond speculation, it’s speculative speculation.

Pope Benedict is right.

God bless,
ED

 

[drpmjhess]

Thank you for your reflections on science and religion. It hit a raw nerve with me because I deal with it a lot in my work. People who don’t understand religion think I’m a time-wasting fool for being a Catholic, and people who don’t understand science think I’m a fool for accepting evolution. I argue that I can be both Catholic and respectful of the integrity of science, and many eminent thinkers agree with me, including Francis Collins, Martinez Hewlett, John Haught, Ken Miller, and former Dominican priest Francisco Ayala, past president of the AAAS, as well as every member of the interdisciplinary, interreligious, and culturally diverse ISSR, or “International Society for Science and Religion,” of which I am a charter member http://www.issr.org.uk/index.asp.

I don’t know of any serious scientists who would waste the time of day on creationism, in either its “Young Earth” or its “Intelligent Design” variants. Science works by drawing up hypotheses to explain evidence, testing it, revising it, modifying theories to fit new evidence, and gradually building up a case for a sound theory. Gravity is a well-substantiated theory to explain why things fall down; relativity is a well-substantiated theory to explain large-scale effects of physics, and evolution is a well-substantiated theory to explain why species vary and yet share morphological an genetic homologies.

Neither “Young Earth” nor “Intelligent Design” creationism formulate theories to explain evidence. Rather, they begin with an assumption about scriptural infallibility or design or some a priori like that, and then search desperately for evidence to support it. That is not doing science. Rather, it is pseudo-scientific dogmatism wrapping itself in the mantle of what to the untutored eye is “science.” These creationists have yet to make a single discovery or contribution to any field. From the point of view of “fruitfulness” to generate new research their utility is less than zero.

The thing that irritates me most as a Catholic Christian theologian – working with kind but very secular people – is that the silly beliefs of Cardinal Schonborn, Michael Behe, Philip Johnson, Stephen C. Meyer (of the Discovery Institute) and a host of others merely reinforce the prejudice that to be a religious believer is to be simple-minded and utterly marginal to intellectual culture. Perhaps you can imagine how painful it is for me to have to explain to non-theistic scientists why they should show respect to religionists when religionists vomit forth their ignorance about what they think scientists ought to believe, or how they ought to conduct their professional work only at the behest and with the permission of “the Church.” To the scientific world – exemplified by the thousands of scholars and researchers who show up annually at the AAAS convention – the pseudo-science of “Young Earth” and “Intelligent Design” creationism is at best a risible curiosity, at worst an utter irrelevance, and it drags genuine spirituality down with it.

 

[Brad]

Brad, science has progressed beyond where it stood in the days of Thomas Aquinas, you know.
Petrus

This is a solid proof!

 

[Brad]

I find no issue at all with common descent (that we all share common building blocks of life). Why would anyone be surprised we are genetically related since DNA is the basic building block for living things?

God certainly could have used these building blocks supernaturally.

Correct.

 

[Brad]

Wrong. The biologist who shows that the theory of evolution is wrong will most likely get a Nobel Prize. Science advances by replacing good theories with better ones.

Except in the case of the evolution state “religion” where a biologist or any other member of the scientific community gets unrelenting criticism and attacks on their stature for criticizing the faith of evolution.

I’ll get to the rest of your points later - don’t have time right now - but I do see below that you label me as a bad poster. This is the typical method of defending evolutionary theory these days. Shut down opposition via ad hominen criticism.

 

[rossum]

Except in the case of the evolution state “religion” where a biologist or any other member of the scientific community gets unrelenting criticism and attacks on their stature for criticizing the faith of evolution.

You are wrong, there is a counterexample here: Ultraconserved Elements in the Genome: Are They Indispensable? Some scientists have found a result that goes against the current prediction of evolutionary theory. The theory says tht ultraconserved elements should have an essential function and that deleting them should be deleterious. When these elements were deleted, no deleterious effects showed up. These scientists were not attacked, but praised for doing a good piece of scientific research. The theory will have to be adjusted to take into account this new evidence:The discovery that deletion of ultraconserved elements does not render mice unviable or infertile is a major challenge to our understanding of how highly conserved elements of the genome persist and what their functions are, says Ahituv. He and his colleagues are pursuing research aimed at answering these compelling new questions.

I’ll get to the rest of your points later - don’t have time right now - but I do see below that you label me as a bad poster. This is the typical method of defending evolutionary theory these days. Shut down opposition via ad hominen criticism.

I was not using an ad hominem argument, that would be like saying “Brad is bald and has athletes foot, therefore when he says 1 + 1 = 2 he must be wrong.” I am not criticising you, I am criticising the poor creationist PRATTs (Points Refuted a Thousand Times) you are using and the creationist sources you got them from.

rossum

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow, the problem with creationists (Prot or Papist) is that they lie. Duane Gish of ICR will be thoroughly refuted on a point of nonsense and move on to a different gullible audience, trotting out precisely the same lies he used before. Michael Behe has been shown to be a biochemical fraud by his peers many times over, but pops up from the coffin again and again. Sounds like you need a heart stake or a silver bullet!

There are many sites you could turn to, but the most useful and compendious is TalkOrigins, http://www.talkorigins.org/. The have an excellent site map at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html#where

Creationists argument from thermodynamics are demolished at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html.

Arguments from the impossibility of abiogenesis are demolished on this page: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

I hope this helps in your search for and defense of scientific truth, in the service of divine truth!

Prayerfully,
Petrus

Thanks for the help. I’m very new here. My welcome has been less than I would hope. I did a post looking for more liberal theology sites and got mowed down by catholic fundies…

 

[Brad]

This is so wrong it is laughable. See The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

Far from laughable. If that is the best fossil evidence for macroevolution, I don’t see how we are told that the evidence is overwhelming and that this is undeniably true. Where are the fossils? Unless I’m missing something, the only transitional fossils actuall depicted are ape-to-human - of which I have a few questions. Where is neanderthal man today if we still have apes and humans? Why do we still have apes?

Agreed, but since no biologist claims that it does, your point is useless. The process of life arising from non-life is called abiogenesis and is separate from evolution. Evolution deals with living populations and so cannot apply when there is nothing alive. I should also point out that creationists have no explanation for the origin of life. You need to think about that question carefully before giving me a knee-jerk response.

Creationists have a very solid explanation. Something supernatural brought life into existence (i.e. beyond science - sorry). I’m not saying I’m a Creationist but I am agreeing that something supernatural brought life into existence.

I severly disagree that my point is useless. It is a vital point as the modern leading proponents of evolutionary theory are turning into God-bashers - they are all coming to the conclusion that God in unnecessary(in fact irrational) - now how can that be? And why are we not surprised that the trend (at least in public schools) is for children to question their belief in God?

Here is what I am referring to:

The God Delusion - Dawkins
The End of Faith - Harris
The Failed Hypothesis - Stenger

Wrong. Chrysopa carnea and Chrysopa downesi are two North American lacewings. C. carnea is light green in summer, brown in autumn and breeds in winter and summer. It lives in deciduous trees, hence the colour change. C. downesi is dark green and breeds in spring. It lives in pine trees, hence the constant dark green colouring. These two do not breed in nature since they live in different habitats and breed at different times. Both morphologically and reproductively they are separate species.

There are three differences in their genes. One carries the colour difference and the other two control the time of breeding. Given that the range of C. downesi is entirely contained within that of C. carnea, it is likely that C. downesi is the newer species having originated from a single change in the gene for colour that allowed it to exploit a different habitat in pine trees. Since the cross-breeds have an intermediate colour they are not camouflaged in either pines or deciduous trees so there is selection pressure against them. The changes to the breeding cycle would probably have come later, having an advantage in reducing the number of cross-breeds which represent a wasted effort in evolutionary terms. Some future change in one or the other may render the cross-breeds sterile as a side effect and eventually the two will be unable to produce viable offspring.

Three mutations to form a new species.

How is this evidence? This is theory based mainly on genetic differences.

There are plenty - haemophilia for example.

A demonstration of the danger of this theory. Labeling everyone with a genetic defect as unfit.

And just about everyone has an appendix - so who is the most fit - someone without one? Someone with no genetic defects? Who is the most fit species today?

On the contrary, it is Thomism:“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”

Source: St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica

I agree with St. Thomas. However the religious attack I was referring to was the one regarding “ghettoizing the religion”.