Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific


You are nit-picking at irrelevant differences in the analogy. I was not attempting to duplicate the entire random variation of genetics in evolution by a series of coin flips. I was refuting a faulty objection that evolution can not be repeatable because it includes randomness. As I showed, this is not a valid objection. Any other use of this analogy is unintended by me, and so your nit-picking is petty.


Well no, fossils are not rare at all. We discover many fossils literally every day.


You keep on repeating a claim that has been refuted. Why don’t you challenge the refutation instead of mechanically repeating your faulty claim?

In addition, you are now objecting to evolution by means of a vague distinction which you have never defined, and that is macro vs. micro evolution. You keep claiming these are qualitatively different buy have yet to define them well enough to prove your point, or for anyone to refute them.


The chances of the event is not at issue. What is at issue is the theoretical possibility of evolution being falsified. No one said it would be easy to falsify evolution, but as a scientific theory, it is falsifiable.


Looking specifically for a rabbit fossil in the Precambrian would be very difficult, indeed. But out of the considerably number of fossils that HAVE been studied, you really couldn’t have a better set of observations in support of evolution.

But that would require 1) finding facts and 2) caring about them.


“la la la intelligent design is possible la la la”

Dawkins’ position, if you ever watch his actual debates or read his actual books (which I’m quite certain you haven’t) is super super clear.

If you think he’s “admitting” anything, then you are having trouble understanding the video you linked. He’s very clearly saying that the ultimate source of speciation is only evolution, and that anything intelligently designed must have been designed by an evolved species. That is, he’s saying ID cannot provide a description of the original formation of species-- exactly the opposite of what you believe.

There are plenty of good arguments for God and religious beliefs. I would start with the existence of mind, or with some of the trickier bits of modern physics which seem to involve a knowing universe. But ID is just a weak theological position pretending to be actual science, and cannot get very far.


It is true enough that interactions with humanity have led some species to be wiped out, and some to thrive. The same happened when the larger dinosaurs were wiped out, and mammals and birds finally had their chance to flourish.

However, many people enjoy seeing wild animals. We LIKE going to Africa and seeing giraffes eating leaves from tall trees. We LIKE watching live video of cheetahs chasing gazelles or whatever. Most of us would like to limit human impact on other species, so that we can enjoy watching them and learning about them more.


To say that evolution is repeatable is equivalent to saying that the theory of relativity is repeatable. What is repeatable is having two organisms of the same species mate and producing offspring, most or at least some of the time. What is not repeatable, or hasn’t actually been done is to induce random mutations and have a more complex organ system arise in the offspring. For example, if we irradiate the fertilized egg of a more primitive organism, such that it would cause changes in the development of its eyes, we could not produce the eye of an eagle, with its accompanying neurological network capable of seeing a rabbit two miles away while in flight. Were this ever to be accomplished, the way random things occur, it would not be reproduceable.


Twins still come from one fertilized human cell. It is an interesting twist to consider one’s previous body a progenitor. This old man would be the offspring of my five-year-old self. The ‘child is the father of man’.

Thanks for the fourth grade health lesson. It brings back memories of my naive youth.

Where is your proof that God does not exist? Seriously, prove that something cannot be?


Further to the above, I felt I needed a refresher on the concept of chimera. The physical aspect of such organisms contains DNA of at least two different kinds.

I suppose that we can create a chimera doing a transplant. The person would have a kidney, heart, liver, lung that was once a part of someone else’s body. I had a dental implant where they used porcine bone to build up the jaw in that immediate area. I’m pretty sure it was denatured so I haven’t become some pig-man in the process.

There can be differences in DNA arising from mutations during development. I believe this may be found in plants because mutations at a genetic level can be increasingly deleterious to more complex organisms. We aren’t called chimeras when we develop cancer although we have at least one additional mutated form of our original DNA.

There are instances where more than one zygotes merge to form one body. That would be the case that is described above. Very interesting indeed!


Don’t let any of Chardin’s followers inspect you unless you want to be classified as a new species.


You have described a very poor experiment to see if evolution is repeatable. It is not surprising that such an experiment fails to produce the desired results.


You appear to have forgotten that I am Buddhist. Where is your proof that all the Buddhist gods do not exist?

Sakra, the ruler of the celestials, with twenty thousand gods, his followers, such as the god Chandra (the Moon), the god Surya (the Sun), the god Samantagandha (the Wind), the god Ratnaprabha, the god Avabhasaprabha, and others; further, the four great rulers of the cardinal points with thirty thousand gods in their train, viz. the great ruler Virudhaka, the great ruler Virupaksha, the great ruler Dhritarashtra, and the great ruler Vaisravana; the god Ishvara and the god Maheshvara, each followed by thirty thousand gods; further, Brahma Sahdmpati and his twelve thousand followers, the Brahmakayika gods, amongst whom Brahma Sikhin and Brahma Gyotishprabha, with the other twelve thousand Brahmakayika gods.

– Saddharmapundarika sutra, Chapter One

Your religion claims that none of those many gods really exist. Where is your proof?

The second case is what I am talking about, two fertilized ova merge at a very early stage of development, to form a single foetus with a patchwork makeup from two different genomes. They are not common, but do happen. See Chimera.



The diversity we see in nature arises from multiple causes, some physical, some psychological and some spiritual.

The spiritual aspect is called creation, where things in themselves are brought into being. There exist different kinds of things in the world. Life begets life and each organism began with one or two first members. The begininning of each type of organism is a template for all that follow. That template has some degree of physical and psychological attributes.

The psychological impacts on diversity providing an instinctive image to which the organism is attracted and thereby potentially leading to reproduction, that the offspring might approach that ideal. There may be something to the Lamarkian view in that the aspirations of giraffe progenitors might cause them to seek mates with a longer necks and thereby that built-in genetic trait is amplified. The process is more complex because considerable modifications to the respiratory, cardiovascular and gastroenterological systems, must go along with changes in the spine. One intuits the influence of ongoing design in time.

As to the physical, the code and 3-D structure of DNA in addition to epigenetic processes allow for the expression of diversity. Again here one can imagine this as an act of creative “design” in the moment. The way this would work can be imagined as being analogous to the workings of the single entity that is the mind-body, where as one they undergo change, under the influence of the soul of which they are formed. We are dealing with a transcendent Being - God, so the analogy works only partially.

Speciation can occur from a variety of causes. Among them is the impact of chemistry. DNA is physical and open to structural changes resulting from random physical events occurring within and in the surrounding material environment. The effect may be the creation of a nonfunctional protein. In this case something is lost. If not something necessary for survival, it might be the behaviour of hemoglobin, such as in the case of HbS or C, as mentioned in an earlier post. It might have to do with the colour of the organism. In this case losing a bright colour would be a loss, but result in a gain in its capacity to camouflage itself.


I took him seriously when he first published. It goes to show how far we can “evolve”. Grow is a better word since the process is hardly random and requires graces that allow one to reach beyond one’s capacities.


Propose something, or open your mind and reconsider your position.


The subject of this thread is “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is not scientific.” I want to stick to the subject.

(My mind is constantly open and I am always reconsidering my position. As of right now I see no reason to change it.)


The isolated quote makes perfect sense within the context of the scripture from which it is taken, Buddhism as a whole and the culture in which it was written. I would remind you that there are different schools in the Buddhist tradition and not all would subscribe to a belief that these are actual entities. I’d say that at a certain point at the roots of what we are discussing, it has nothing to do with belief but rather realizations, which are ultimately all revelations that take one beyond illusion. I call this Faith.


Some times discussions go round and round with no fixed point. In this case we have gone full circle where statements as to how evolution is unscientific we’re presented and then questioned. Trying to get to the core of the objection to the claim that they are not, went in some weird directions, and now we have gone back to where we started. I think I’ve got to get off this merry-go-round; they make me dizzy. Better to get straight to the point.


Wiki, the preferred source for internet armchair intellectuals worldwide.

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.