Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific


But it does not run counter to the definition of natural selection. Evolution, taken overall, is not a random process.



This shows a marked lack of understanding of the concept of evolution and what it is doing when it’s used to interprets the physical structure of organisms existing now and the remnants of those that once were in time. The fact is that there is nothing that can disprove evolution because it is philosophical, not scientific. It’s a lens that distorts reality, such that whatever you look at will fit the distortion. The reality is something greater and more obvious - creation.


Try to repeat something that is random.

The claim made by the poster was:

I have no idea what he means. This comes across as just words put together, amounting to nonsense. I need some clarification as to his line of thinking.


The HbC mutation, which protects against malaria, is beta6Glu --> Lys, a mutation in the Beta Haemoglobin protein, replacing Glutamine with Lysine at position 6. See Modiano et al (2001). You will also note that this paper makes a prediction:

These findings, together with the limited pathology of HbAC and HbCC compared to the severely disadvantaged HbSS and HbSC genotypes and the low betaS gene frequency in the geographic epicentre of betaC, support the hypothesis that, in the long term and in the absence of malaria control, HbC would replace HbS in central West Africa.

This is an example of where evolution can make a testable prediction. HbA is the standard haemoglobin chain, HbS is the sickle cell mutation, “severely disadvantaged”.

The Apo AI-Milano mutation is ApoAI173Arg–>Cys. It protects against heart attacks caused by high cholesterol.

Those two should be enough to be going on with. I will need to dig more for my other examples as there are different mutations having similar effects there. Tibetan and Andean Americans have different ways to adapt to high altitude.



I not proposing a mechanism, so there is no mechanism for me to explain. I am just observing that a new species has gained a function in the same sense that it has lost a function. Buffalo claims the inability to breed with its parent species is a loss of function, and that’s all that speciation is - a loss of function. I am just showing that to be wrong.


Your ability to screen out information in order to maintain your view is remarkable.

Dawkins, a famous supporter of evolution and an atheist, is saying that the only where there can be intelligent design is if a species EVOLVED (you forgot to bold that word) to the point where it had the technology to design new life forms.

All you heard is “la la la la intelligent design is possible la la la.” Truly remarkable. :smiley:


Not at all. A random coin toss tends to come up heads 50% of the time. You can repeat that experiment tomorrow and the next day and it will still tend to come out 50% heads. The theory is repeatable, even though it is about a random process.


It’s such a dumb claim that an average five year-old would immediately ask: “So. . . when giraffes got super-long necks, what function were they losing? They ability not to eat leaves high in trees? The ability to have short legs?”


As already said, yes, there are things that would disprove evolution if they were discovered, like rabbits fossils in Precambrian strata. Furthermore, the apparition of new species by genetic mutation was empirically observed in at least two cases: tragopogon miscellus and tragopogon mirus So yes, it’s science, not philosophy. Also creation is not opposed to evolution. The distortion seem to be in your own eyes.


Half-life of radioactive isotopes is another good example.


Hemoglobins S and C are structural variants of normal HbA that result from separate mutations in the β-globin gene. HbS is protective against death from Plasmodium falciparum malaria.

This is because the deficiency that results in very painful short lives also negatively effects the malaria organism which lives in red blood cells. As has been stated and restated this sort of process of random genetic mutation could never result in the eventual formation human offspring from a presumed unicellular progenitor.


Please explain how this applies to evolution.


Evolution doesn’t have rules. It’s a description of the interactions among species and environmental conditions over time.


It applies to your comment in which you claimed that evolution could not be repeatable because it involves randomness. My example shows that your objection to evolution being repeatable is faulty.


HbS and HbC are different variants. HbC protects against malaria and has far fewer deleterious effects than HbS.

Almost every single human being results from a “unicellular progenitor”, and that progenitor is not presumed. It is called a zygote, and it is formed when a sperm fertilises an egg. The exceptions are identical twins, where more then one human being forms from a single zygote, or chimeras where one human being forms from two zygotes.

Apart from that obvious error, do you have any scientific evidence to back up your opinion? For example, do you have any evidence that single celled eukaryotes cannot have given rise to a multi-celled organism like Volvox or a sponge? That was the first step in the process.



I’m talking about “Survival of the fittest” if man has cause the extinction of a multitude of species, it was because they were unfit.Man can’t be blamed, because he is a product of evolution also.


It is not really random as you think. The fix is in. The experiment is designed with only two outcomes. The search space is very limited.


Fossils are so rare this would be truly remarkable.


Do you really think Dawkins would not make this claim. The point to be made is he admits ID is possible but will into accept the designer as God.


Looking at this from a birds eye view speciation is loss of a function once had. We just happen to label them differently and try to claim somehow this is macro-evolution.

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.