Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three


Thank you, Buffalo. A neat summation of the “trust us, evolution did something” conditioning that is being attempted here and that others, including scientists, are told to simply accept while it does nothing to aid them as they stumble through the dark - no light to guide them aside from taking things apart, that already exist, and discovering things, that already exist, and giving credit to what? Themselves, of course.

Think of the most complicated device ever made and then say it’s here because it’s here?


Well, more precisely, the animals you see are all variance of the form, but fit the form nontheless; in this sense there should be no in betweener, unless a form of the in betweener is.

I think the environment does affect the variation.


Environment does affect variation.


I am. I am showing, by examples, that your objections to the history of the crayfish, as shown in their genome, is not relevant.

DNA can tell us a lot about the history of a species. The Marbled Crayfish is no exception.



It is a crayfish, so it evolved from earlier crayfish, as the article said.


If you go far back, its ancestors were not crayfish, but more generalised arthopods. They already had shells and claws. Crayfish have always had shells and claws.

Going back to the Cambrian, well before the first crayfish, a lot of clades developed shells and claws. For example, trilobites, euteryptids, ur-arthopods and others. The hypothesis is that a change in the chemistry of the oceans allowed the construction of hard shells and teeth at around that time.

Before then all animals were soft bodied, none of them had hard shells or teeth. In the absence of toothed predators, hard shells were not so essential a requirement. For example, we have fossils of early sort-bodied trilobites from before they developed hard shells.

As the environment changes, the requirements for surviving in that environment change.



Your article disagrees with you.


Where does it disagree? Quote the relevant text please.



The topic Lewis is writing about is clearly about atheism hijacking evolution, which we’ve already talked about about a hundred times.

You can shout atheism atheism whenever evolution is supported but the two have nothing in common except perhaps empiricism, which is not bad in itself.

It’s like when anyone talks about Jesus, crying Gnosticism Gnosticism!

Jesus can be used to support Gnosticism, but that doesn’t mean Jesus is Gnostic.

Your strategy seems to be like opposing Jesus because He can be used to support Gnosticism and is a great proof of Gnosticism for Gnostics.


This game you’re playing is pointless.

We all know you can provide links or quotes from many thousands of perfectly good examples of evolution and its use as a scientific idea in understanding animals. We also know that nobody is going to read them. They’ll wait about 20 posts, pretend it never happened, and just keep repeating whatever they already said.


They are against evolution as a matter of principle. Its got nothing to do with reason or evidence.



Most people are not arguing the science, although it could be argued. It is the story that is woven from it. Clearly what has not happened is your reading my posts that address the article. The marble crayfish provides an example of why evolution cannot be.


It has everything to do with faith, reason and good science.

People don’t seem to want to discuss the actual genetics, of which Buffalo has addressed at length.

You call yourself Iwantgod. Let’s talk about faith and science. I am interested in What you make of the Garden of Eden?


Scientists, many thousands of them, have made millions of observations, studies thousands of objects, put forward and bitterly debated among each other what their observations mean. Those ideas which have survived have done so by a kind of evolution of their own-- only those ideas capable of standing up to the fiercest criticism are allowed to persist for more than a couple of decades at most. And even those which survive must change with new observations, or be set aside.

This is not a bunch of dudes sitting around spinning a yarn just 'cuz.

I have to point out, and forgive me because I know this is a Catholic forum, but are you incapable of seeing the incredible difference in the bar you set for allowing “knowledge” to pass into your world view?

I’ve been asked in this thread about the usefulness of evolution. What is the usefulness of taking the Adam and Eve story as literal truth. EVEN IF it’s true, how will that inform the way we live life, or the way we should interact with the Universe all around us?


The usefulness of evolution has been shown to be zero. And the reference I’m making is not about science as a whole but about this idea. That’s the whole point. It certainly offers no guidance for biologists who study things that are alive today. But that is usually ignored.


But you’ve pointed out its, according to you, uselessness as an argument against it. So given that evolution and creationism are both allowed by the Church, why is creationism not useless? (Remebering that belief in God can be fostered with both.)


Divine revelation is trustworthy.


Evolution is permitted by the Church which allows an allegorical interpretation. So how is Creationism useful? For example why should science accept Creationism with biology? How does it help us better understand animals living today?


Avoiding the statement. How does evolution help any biologist working with creatures alive today?


But sometimes useless. What possible use is there to knowing that God created Eve from Adam’s rib, and not from Adam’s gall bladder?

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