Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three


How many marbled crawfish are needed to where you never have to buy crawfish again? If they just clone themselves, then I wonder if most of the subsequent generations will tend to be the same size and taste as the others. Some plump ones sound good…they’re still edible, right?


Yeah, I know…


I am watching with interest the latest dino soft tissue findings and carbon dating.


Let us know.


I find it funny when they say that before 25 years ago, something simply did not exist.

How can you know without omniscient abilities?


Only one needed, to produce offspring. The thing about cloning is that whatever glitches in the process gets passed on to the offspring. With sexual reproduction, the random mutations that occur in the genome are offset by the there being a pair of chromosomes, one contributed by each parent. Eventually that “species”, if we could call it that will die out through the accumulation of junk where there was previously functional DNA. That would be one reason why more complex organisms reproduce sexually. As to taste and plumpness, I don’t know much about crayfish farming, but the environment is as much a determinant to the eventual form of the adult organism as are the genetics. I’ve heard that they like to eat pretty much everything, but giving it lemon zest, hoping to give the meat a citrusy flavour probably won’t work.


Dino tissues, soft or hard, are not dated by carbon dating but by other methods. Go and read the original scientific papers to check out the actual methods used.



I find it funny when they say that before 300 years ago, the United States simply did not exist.


How can you know without omniscient abilities?



They don’t say how they arrived at the figure, but it’s probably a very rough estimate based on assumptions concerning the population, it’s rate of growth and current numbers. They go on to say that they don’t know whether it originated in the USA or a German aquarium. It makes for an interesting story.

Again, this is a freak of nature having three sets of chromosomes. But, since we decide what we will call things, we call it a new species. Evolution at work apparently, but not yet because the days of this species are numbered. Random mutation and natural selection will do it in.

It seems you have provided further evidence that this is how the diversity, which actually works in nature does not happen. Random changes in the chemical structure of genetic material cause problems in the offspring. Sexual reproduction, in addition to cell mediated corrective processes are ways in which such problems are corrected.

It’s actually causing some concern because it could become an invasive “species” in the wild. Because of its numbers, it could supplant native crayfish. It’s one of God’s creatures but it’s sick and with respect to the environment it could turn into the equivalent of a cancer. Fisheries and Oceans Canada for example is cautioning people against buying them.


They are now.


Your analogy fails so badly I wonder if you even care what you are typing.

The US, being a single Nation, can be accounted for by witnesses in history.
We know it cannot be elsewhere, and we know it was not here before.

These crayfish can appear in fresh water without anyone knowing at all. They cannot be accounted for without accounting for every creature in every lake and aquarium, everywhere.


how’s the debate on Darwin’s Theory? Anything new?


Yes… I’ve learn that some people are offended by this thread.


I one man’s freak of nature… is another man’s evolution.


The fact is, the theory remains unproven. Years ago I read a paper which was a very interesting critique of the theory. One point was: it is perfectly possible to have a worldwide natural ecosystem in equilibrium with fewer than 100 species, so why are there millions? another point was: ‘evolution’ supposedly has led to extremely complex adaptations, such as an electric eel that can not only generate but store electricity and is supposedly millions of years old. On the other hand, something so simple and basic such as the wheel does not exist in nature. It should be perfectly possible to have rodents with retractable wheels that grow and wear out like fingernails. It is a contradiction of sorts that it took humans thousands of years to be able to store and apply electricity but invent the wheel since more or less day one yet natural evolution never produced the wheel and it produced electricity from more or less day one.


Their genomes can be sequenced and compared with the genomes of other species of crayfish. That is how their origin was determined, as the article explained:

Sequencing the genome of this animal was not easy: No one had sequenced the genome of a crayfish. In fact, no one had ever sequenced any close relative of crayfish.

Dr. Lyko and his colleagues struggled for years to piece together fragments of DNA into a single map of its genome. Once they succeeded, they sequenced the genomes of 15 other specimens, including marbled crayfish living in German lakes and those belonging to other species.

The rich genetic detail gave the scientists a much clearer look at the freakish origins of the marbled crayfish.

It apparently evolved from a species known as the slough crayfish, Procambarus fallax, which lives only in the tributaries of the Satilla River in Florida and Georgia.

The scientists concluded that the new species got its start when two slough crayfish mated. One of them had a mutation in a sex cell — whether it was an egg or sperm, the scientists can’t tell.

We have a “witness in history”, the animal’s genome. Just like DNA paternity tests. They will work over 25 years and more. Same for crayfish.



There are various scientific definitions of species, the most commonly accepted one involving the ability to create nonsterile offspring.
This makes sense if one is limited by physical definitions, but I think many on the intelligent design side, whether they realize it or not, define the species as a sort of kind or something that is a shadow of a form or something. hence the acceptance of various dogs, even drastically different ones, but not something that isn’t quite a dog or some other creature.


:astonished: How? It’s about a scientific theory!


We have never seen this before, therefore it was not there before.


We have never seen you before, we have only seen your parents.

Laughable indeed.

You need to learn more about biology if you want to avoid basic errors like this. Alternatively learn more about the role of DNA testing in Forensic Science and in paternity testing.


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