Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three


As a child I often considered going to the moon in a hot air balloon.
After all, balloons can fly up. They can take me to high mountains.

It is the same thing for the moon, only differing in scale.


It would, except for the fact that air runs out and the density gradient vanishes. If you think micro and macro evolution are similarly distinguished, then what is the barrier that prevents micro from becoming macro?


Very selective quoting. Pope Benedict:

"In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

"Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."


I do not know.
But given the numerous examples of micro evolution and the lack of examples of macro, I am inclined to believe them to be separate things.


The lack of contemporary examples of macro evolution has a much simpler explanation: It takes longer to make big changes than small ones. You just don’t have enough patience. Or are unwilling to consider fossil evidence as evidence of macro evolution (for some reason).


Pope Benedict XVI. “We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”


Fossils tell us an animal was there, and is now gone.
But do not indicate a animal turning into another animal.

As to time…that seems convenient.

Dogs are still dogs, in spite of all the human intervention.


I disagree.

Facts are not judged by whether they are convenient or inconvenient.

They are still dogs because our language chooses to call them all dogs. So that distinction means nothing.


Do you suggest the that they are different species?
Has macro evolution taken place?
If so, your point is well made.

If not, you are just playing with words.


While I’m sure this sounds like its coming out of left field there are some points that may be relevant to any reader.

Academic success follows the realization that education is all about understanding what the instructor is trying to convey and repeating it in exams and essays, as best one can. Like and apology, one can’t just say it, one has to mean it. The more creative the interpretation of the teaching, the better it is.

At the same time one develops one’s own understandings. And at a certain point in life, that is all there is. The person whose standards one has to meet are one’s own. Since they help form one’s intellectual and emotional connection to reality, the way to commune with nature and Existence itself, personal integrity and a commitment to the truth are all important.

All I’m doing here is passing on my thoughts, while learning much from others. Sometimes, for different reasons, it’s a bit more passionate than others. These dialogues have many levels, that between two persons being in many cases more of an excuse and the least important. I must say that I tend to be more interested in presenting a reasoned argument than convincing anyone. Each of us, through our choices forms our individual dialogue with creation and its Creator.


That depends on your definition of a species. One common definition is the ability to interbreed. I would like to see you breed a chihuahua with a mastiff in a natural manner.

Another definition is based on what the animal looks like. There are dogs the look a lot more like a fox than they do like other dogs. Yet dogs and foxes cannot interbreed.


Agreed. It has never ever happened. An amphibian is an amphibian it’s entire life, as is a caterpillar becoming a butterfly. All organisms develop, grow and age exhibiting a very different appearance through their life cycle, never becoming not themselves, let alone a different animal. Living things develop cancers when the cellular genetic machinery goes askew, yet remain the same creature.

Species appear to exist although they are a very different entity than that defined by current biological science, which seems focussed on morphology and organic chemistry than the encompassing life which is the individual creature. The truth of cats and dogs may be an underlying animal soul which gives them existence, or they may be expressions of differentiated kinds at an existential level. As they exist, exhibiting contrasting or similar natures, so would they and their ancestors successively before them, have been been brought into existence, as expressions of their kind.


Right, which is what everyone should affirm, it does however have a massive amount of empirical data for support. Which is what was being talked about in the quotes.

He is right, we can’t go back in a time machine and do controlled experiments, but most scientists would say you can’t really prove a theory to be true, only falsify it, because science is always open to the contrary data. Proving it would be dogmatic, comforting to some, but too rigid to leave room for contradiction.

We can say that the theory of gravity has been verified, but we could discover something which overturns the theory on another planet or at the quantum level etc.

There are still realities which support and confirm evolution and that is what he was getting at. Confirmation is a bit different than proof though.

We can’t haul black holes into the laboratory either, so he is right on that.


Exactly, God is the God of evolution, as Benedict said, he uses secondary laws to fulfill his purpose, He puts his laws into our hearts, and laws into our genetics and nature.


That’s a roundabout non-answer to the question of whether there existed a human at any time “perfectly adapted” to the degree they never got sick or whatnot, and then devolved from that state to a less perfect state over time.

It is really a simple question with a simple answer. If yes, then let’s examine it. If no, then what support do you have for your belief?


Some people, over the years, have provided me, and others, with ‘empirical data.’ As I read more and more peer reviewed journals, I see data but none of it points to evolution. It simply states observations, which others can confirm and build upon. Assuming evolution did anything is just that, an assumption. Evolution provides no guidance in what amounts to various studies of particular aspects of things alive today. If anything, my readings show how much scientists don’t know. They are reverse-engineering what is already there and “discovering” things that were already there. They now know that molecular switch B8954 does this or that, or that molecular switch C335a, if somehow left in the “on” position after it should be off, can lead to this or that disease.


Which articles, specifically?

Have you read any articles in Journal of Human Evolution, Journal of Phylogenetics & Evolutionary Biology, Infection, Genetics and Evolution, Organisms Diversity & Evolution, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, among others?


What can I say to someone who does not believe in the reality of Eden. Peace brother.


I know you are just trying to cover your bases in trying to touch upon multiple meanings.

But from my side it looks like you are just hiding the argument behind words and variable meanings.

Dogs are dogs.
They are not foxes.
All dogs can interbreed.

In spite of all the human interference through the millennia, they are still dogs.


I thought you were talking about humans in general after the fall, that they became less perfect over time. You didn’t mention just Adam and Eve before the fall. Even if you found their bones it would be after the fall, so you wouldn’t have any proof that their DNA was immortally perfect. In fact it wasn’t from their DNA that they would have got their perfection, it was the tree of life.

The Bible, Catechism and Papal Documents make it clear that it was an original holiness, justice, harmony with God, with creation is lost, but notice that animals and plants did not lose this.

Access to the tree of life, which gives immortality, was only for man. Plants and animals had no access to it and so they died already. The nature of animals were not changed by mans sin.

So your claim is:

  1. Early man was perfectly adapted
  2. Adam and Eve were the only perfectly adapted ones so we have no proof, because they fell
  3. I believe in perfectly adapted humans and corresponding DNA but all I have is the story of Adam and Eve to speak for DNA, not paleontological data.

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