Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific


Hello -


More interesting is to show me the exact evolutionary pathway on the blood pressure control and the way the lungs work on the giraffe. The rib cage and how it breathes when running.


What? Completely misinterpreting the video wasn’t it? There’s more?

I was going to say that you should quit while you’re in front. But you’re not. So I guess there’s not much more to loose in continuing.


Why gee. That’s a blow for the evolutionary process. A giraffe eating grass. I guess developing a long neck (via MICRO evolution!) was a waste of time.

Sorry, was that the point you were making? That micro evolution is micro evolution only when it prevents you doing something? As opposed to making some aspects more beneficial and some things less? Cos I thought you were good with the long neck thingy. That it just proved one of your points.

It hardly seems the sensible thing to do to post something that contradicts your position.


My rebuttal? No, your word salad was the rebuttal. And not worth the paper it wasn’t written on.

In the looong sequence of micro adaptions that any given organism goes through, you have to shout STOP! But you don’t know when that is or why you needed to shout it at that moment. Was it when the hair got longer by a millmetre? Of the teeth by a few microns? Or the trunk shorter by half an inch?

All you can say is that you refuse to believe that any changes continue. And here’s the thing…Nature has no memory. It has no idea what the last change was so any change is always the first.

So here’s a creature and it’s about to change in an extremely small way. A really tiny micro adaption. Is that allowed? Or is there something (apart from you) that prevents it? We need to know…




And there it is. Remember, evolution does this except when it doesn’t.


No, you are wrong. Because they cannot interbreed we call them a new species. That is the definition of a species.

Even Jerry Coyne knows that speciation happens:

it took to close the ring, but sporadic geographic breaks in the ring, so that the salamanders could differentiate without pesky gene flow from adjacent populations. Some adjacent populations showed very sharp genetic differentiation, implying geographic isolation in the past

Your own authority informs you that speciation happens. Coyne is right, speciaiton does happen. Why do you not believe the authority you are citing.

Not very impressive I’m afraid.



Human knees are capable of carrying half our weight. The problem is that they are expecting our elbows to carry the other half. :smiley:



Who denied that what we call “speciation” does not happen? It is clear that the ability to no longer reproduce happens. Perhaps we should reconsider what we call it, though… Coyne does not agree with you about ring species. Coyne is not my authority, he is fully in your camp.


Huh? My knees carry my full weight.


What sort of speciation are you requiring? You seem to be downplaying the importance of the kind that we see, probably because it is evidence in favor of evolution?


Speciation is the splitting of lineages resulting from isolation, delterious mutations, etc. that renders then unable to reproduce with each other.

What kind do you see?


You did when you denied macro-evolution. By definition macro-evolution is speciation and higher. Micro-evolution is variation within the same species.

By accepting speciation, you have also accepted macro-evolution.



speciation or higher? define higher…


I didn’t ask you what kind of speciation you see. I asked you what kind of speciation you would require as evidence in favor of evolution.


Changes that pass the threshold of being called speciation and changes that are even larger.

But since you are objecting to linking this with macro-evolution, which you deny exists, you should define what you mean by macro evolution. That is, what is the smallest change that you would call macro-evolution, if such a thing exists?


Would mega fauna becoming regular sized fauna qualify as macro-evolution? I would probably have called that an evolutionary trend. What I normally think of as evolution is micro-evolution: small, incremental changes to a population.


The origin of a new Genus, a new Family or the origin of any higher clade, for example the origin of the Eukaryote Domain.




The distances between is a huge gap to close. Recently, the gap has become even harder as we see the “species” bending back to its mean over time and not crossing the gap. We see “error” correcting mechanisms that prevent mutations from becoming fixed. We see HGT and HTT and gene flow within species and make it harder to even identify a species.


You didn’t answer the question. What is the smallest change that you would call macro-evolution. And please don’t define it in terms of another equally-vague term. I want something I can scientifically test.

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.