Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific


Strictly, you are wrong. Any “missing links” are still missing. What we do have are tons of found links. Once a link is found it is no longer missing, obviously. :slight_smile:

The links for whale evolution used to be missing. Now we have found them: Ambulocetus, Pakicetus and others. Those are now found links.



Well yes I should have said “previously missing links”. I will correct it.


Simple things do not need design. Dr. Dembski allows simple things, and non-specified complex things, to arise from chance or necessity, as per Monod.

How was your proposed Designer designed? Complex specified things do need design.



So NS is not specified. and we know it is not creative but conserves the organism. (science)

My designer, aka God is the uncaused cause, always was and always will be. Standard Catholic knowledge… (philosophy)


Random mutations are the creative part, being random they try all sorts of new things. As you say, NS is generally conservative. In an unchanging environment it is very conservative, hence the “equilibrium” part of Punctuated equilibrium. In a changing environment it is a bit less conservative and selects those random mutations which are useful in the current version of the environment. Change is driven by random mutation; stasis is driven by natural selection. It is the tension between the two processes which gives evolution a lot of its power.

Your problem here is that ID is a legal idea, designed to get a form of creationism taught in US Public schools. You can’t mention that God is the Designer. See “cdesign proponentsists” for an example of the removal of God from ID textbooks.



Oh, they do, do they? They TRY all sorts of new things as they go through an algorithm of sorts?


Catholics knew ID long before. In fact, the reason modern science is what it is because we recognized the universe to be rational and worthy of study.

I have posted this often:
Only empirical science in the science classroom, that is observable, repeatable and predictable.

Evolution and ID in mandatory philosophy class. Do you agree?

ID, the science, only looks for evidence of design.


This is the “evolution spits out random life forms all the time” theory. Fortunately, living things are designed.


They are pretty straight forward. Having had a number of friends, family and aquaintances succumb to the reality of natural selection, whereby anything that does not quite fit, dies and the random mutations that cause cancer, I do agree also that no intelligence is involved in those processes. Creation, is a totally different matter.


That whizzing sound you can hear is a metaphor passing you by. Do you really think that Matthew 4:8 requires you to believe in a flat earth?

You can do better than this, buffalo.



Oh, they do, do they? They TRY all sorts of new things as they go through an algorithm of sorts?

For the folks - yes or no.


Random mutation causes variations in the enzymes/proteins of an organism. Most of the variant enzymes are not beneficial. Some enzymes are beneficial. Natural selection differentially amplifies the genes that cause those beneficial enzymes through differential reproductive success. That causes those variants of those enzymes to spread through the population over time.



At this point it is not enough that you assert this.
Let’s have some scientific evidence.


You want beneficial mutations? HbC, Apo AI-Milano, lactase persistence, various high altitude adaptations in Tibet, the Andes and Africa. And those are all in humans. There are others, like Warfarin resistance in mice and rats, or Myxomotosis resistance in rabbits.

Do not believe any creationist website that tells you that there are no beneficial mutations. There are, and that website is lying to you.



You keep saying this over and over even though it has been pointed out to you numerous times that the loss of one function is accompanied by the gain of another function - namely the ability to breed with others of the new species.


When you say “we” I hope you are not restricting this recognition to only Catholics. It is true that the Church has long sought out scientific knowledge, but so have other groups who realized totally independently of the Church that the universe is rational and worthy of study.

No, because Evolution is empirical, observable, repeatable, and predictable - just not the way you want it to be.


Evolution is not “empirical, observable, repeatable, and predictable”


The evidence I am requesting has to do with particular mutations in DNA and the concomitant change in the protein for which they code. What you present here is really inadequate to make your case.


I think you should explain how your proposed mechanism would work.


What do you mean? It sort of runs counter to the definition of random.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.