Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific


So you do get it. You have just described how evolution works. So where is the problem?

Oh, it’s that you think there must be a degenerative effect. So a butterfly ‘loses’ its bright colour and only ‘gains’ a dull one. Because you think bright colours are pretty and therefore ‘good’ and dull colours are boring and therefore ‘bad’. So losing colour is a negative effect. Hmmm.

I think your mind set is pretty much like the old dear that used to teach Hitchens when he was a small boy. She told his class that grass was green because God made it that colour so it was restful to our eyes. Cue snickering from small boys who, whilst not knowing exactly why grass was green, already realised at a very young age that the old dear was so far off the mark as to be held in ridicule.

Growing more fur is a negative effect (unless the environment is getting colder). Growing less fur is a negative (unless the environment is getting warmer). Growing a longer neck is a disadvantage (unless all the leaves you need are at high level). Growing a shorter neck is a disadvantage (unless you need to crop grass). Becoming short sighted is a disadvantage (unless you need better sight at long distance to catch your prey). Becoming long sighted is a disadvantage (unless everything you need to eat is up close).

Need one go on?


Right. There is another thread about whether Evolution is true. That would be a good place to discuss various supports and objections to evolution.


I assumed that your would want a general introduction, given the question you asked. If you want more, then follow up the references at the bottom of the Wiki article, or go on Google Scholar. I get 167,000 hits for “human chimera”, the first is Bachetta et al (1990) “Host-reactive CD4+ and CD8+ T cell clones isolated from a human chimera produce IL-5, IL-2, IFN-gamma and granulocyte/macrophage-colony-stimulating factor but not IL-4” which I suspected would be rather too detailed and narrowly focused as an answer to your question. Something more broad-brush seemed more likely to be what you wanted. Hence the Wiki reference.

My apologies if what you wanted was something more like the Bachetta paper. My mistake.



Of course he had to cover himself that way. :grinning:


Hopefully. Gotta watch for horizontal gene transfer. :grinning:


They may. Is there a top god?


Yes, list more examples of adaptation aka micro-evolution.


There is a god who thinks he is the top god.

Given that all gods are subject to karma, then “top” is at most relative.



Now what I can do at this point is give an example of a species with a long neck gradually evolving a slightly shorter neck. And then I’d ask if that was OK as far as you were concerned. And you’d say: 'Sure, Bradski. That’s a great example of MICRO evolution! (snicker snicker).

And then in the next post, I’d say that this creature with a slightly shorter neck very gradually developed an even shorter one. And you’d say: ‘No worries good buddy. Just another great example of MICRO evolution!’

Now you can see where I’m going with this…

So let’s not bother anyone with multiple posts with me suggesting very small changes to the creature which you, at every stage chortle: ‘MICRO evolution you idiot. All you are doing is showing me MICRO evolution’. Let’s assume we’ve gone through the process. Over thousands of posts. And tiny, incremental adaptions agreed to be micro evolution at every stage.

Now what do you think we might end up with at the end of all those tiny, incremental changes over many millions of years - Oops, sorry…many thousands of posts, each one being a great example of micro evolution.

Do you think it will look much like a giraffe? It’s gotten a lot smaller (all those micro-evolution adaptions!). It’s grown much longer hair (go those little micro-evolutionary changes!). It has long teeth, a short stubby neck and can swim really, really well.

It looks something like a beaver. And how did it get there? Lots and lots of teensy itsy-bitsy micro-evolutionary adaptions to a changing environment.

You are so limited in your knowledge of the evolutionary process that you don’t know that it is actually made up of small, barely significant adaptions. Which we would all agree, at every stage, would be micro evolution.

'What are you doing, Bradski?
‘I’m building a house, Buffalo. What does it look like I’m doing?’
‘Well it doesn’t look like house building to me. All you just did was put one brick on top of another!’

You’d think that spending all your time hanging around evolution threads you would actually be better at this. How can you be worse than when you first started? It makes no sense.


Then the “top god” is conditioned. (so he can not really be the top one)


Cover himself? What the…? It was his main point. You really didn’t understand it at all, did you…


Ring species show very clearly that a lot of micro- can add up to macro-, where the two species at the ends of the ring live in the same location but cannot interbreed.

Species A breeds in June/July. Species B breeds in July/August. Species C breeds in August/September. Species D breeds in September/October. Each species can breed with its neighbours, but species A cannot breed with species D. Just one way a ring species can show how small micro-evolutionary changes can add up to a macro-evolutionary change and the emergence of a new species.



Ahhh, but you conveniently ignore the limits of these changes.

You also conveniently ignore that morphological changes as a benchmark are giving way to genetic classifications.

You ignore the effects of HGT.

You ignore the self correcting DNA mechanisms that only allow these adaptations.

You ignore the new data showing “species” hover about their mean.

You are building a house? You have plans? Designs?


Of course it is - this is Dawkins were talking about. He is clever in his answers. In any case, Remember how this discourse started… Review the posts.


This is word salad. You are not even very good at making it. But it’s the normal repsonse when you are found out. Throw out a bunch of meaningless terms in a vague hope that it will deflect from the glaring void which is your argument. The only thing hovering about a mean is your lack of knowledge fluttering over a total lack of understanding of the subject.

I swear, if you ever get pulled over by the cops you would deny being under the influence. ‘But I can’t be drunk, officer. I only had one beer at a time’.


Do you see what is happening here? Again, these species have lost an ability once had. Because they lost function, you are now calling them a “new” species.

Even Jerry Coyne knows ring species are not real.

There are no ring species


If memory serves…hang on, I’ll check…yes, it was you not comprehending the video. You actually thought it supported your view! Que risa!


This is the extent of your rebuttal? another ad-hominem - oh I forgot, always resort to rule #1 when out of arguments. Attack the poster. Nice.


Go back further…


Yeah, when a giraffe developed a longer neck it was a real blow not to easily be able to eat the leaves on the lower branches. And when polar bears developed white fur it was a real bummer in those hot August nights. And walking upright…I mean, the problems with knees and hips! Let me tell you!

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.