Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?


Here is St Augustine on prime matter:


Especially, if it freaks you out.

I can empathize. If you’ve got a copy of Origin of the Species on your table, you are pretty much a believer, perhaps to the point that you no longer recognize it as a faith in what is written. That world is reality and it’s going to be very hard to communicate to those living in a what would appear to be a comparative dreamworld of superstition.

Not feeling the same frustration, I will attempt a partial reply on his behalf.

Natural taxonomy has species as the primary category for grouping organisms with similar features and the capacity to procreate. Offspring are possible where the genetics of the parent organisms are compatable. Animals have preferences, and some different species can produce offspring, but will mate only in captivity, where the environment imposes limits on how they can express their instinctive drives. Conversely, some of the same species, like beagles and Irish setters, seem very unlikely to produce viable offspring. So, we see that the idea of species, is not clear cut and is a hotly debated topic in biology.

Modern science considers Homo sapiens to be a species. Most consider this category to be synonymous with what we otherwise refer to as human.

As part of the classification system that describes life, Homo sapiens is considered to be an offshoot of the branch that is the animal kingdom. Children, look at the picture; the proof is right there - We are animals.

Now, don’t go behaving like animals!


That’s moving the goalpost again. The challenge was to show that a new species emerged from earlier species. I have done it. Sure, those flowers look somewhat similar to their ancestors, but they are a different and viable species, not a sterile hybrid. If the challenge is to show visibly different forms, I offer the chihuahua and the mastif (but they are technically the same species.) If the challenge is to show a contemporary half-dog half-bird creature, I say that is an unreasonable (and silly) challenge.

I don’t know. I suppose so. They were discovered fairly recently and seemed to be dong quite well on their own in the wild.


Your assumptions about what evolution looks like are too narrow. You assume that so-called “transitional” forms would have to look weird. In fact transitional forms are just as suited to their environment as the forms that preceded them, and not much different from the forms that they lead to. You are asking for something that looks weird, when no such thing needs to exist to have evolution.


So that means they should find even more fossils showing this.


I would have thought it obvious that God created the laws of nature given the fact that he created the natural world.; i never argued otherwise.


So that means they should find even more fossils showing this.

Not necessarily. The fossil record is very incomplete. Drawing conclusions from what we don’t find is not well-founded. Besides, the fossil record does show transitional species. Look for example at the detailed fossil record of the animals leading to the whale. They were transitional species.


I wasn’t aware of a challenge, just saying that speciation by DarwinIan evolution is not hybridization.

I also was wondering if they were still in existence as to whether or not they were able to reproduce, because that would mean that there were at least two which were the same.

Don’t mean to move any goalposts, I just imagine that in speaking about evolution most people would be concerned with the evolutionary processes…I didn’t realize there was some challenge presented you.


If it leads to a viable, reproducing new species, it is a form of Darwinian evolution, although not the only form. I mention just to counter the argument that observed variation never leads to new species. It is true that countering one argument against evolution does not prove evolution. But it does disprove a particular argument against it.

According to this article, the new species were able to reproduce with others of their own kind. So they were not sterile hybrids that could only exist by pairing older species. They were self-sustaining, satisfying all the requirements of a truly new species.

Again, I don’t claim that this is the most general form of Darwinian evolution. It is a special case. But it is a special case that shoots down one of the most common arguments against evolution - that species never produce new species.

Well, we do have a kind of argument going here where each side makes claims that challenge the other side’s view. That’s how most arguments proceed, isn’t it? (Not that there is anything wrong with that…)


But being able to reproduce with their own kind does not mean that there were others of their own kind.
Essentially, I am asking if there were two of their own “kind”, and if so, that leaves me wondering the specifics of this experiment. Do you have any papers I could look at?


It was not an experiment. It was an observation of something that happened in the wild. Yes, man brought several of these species to America, but after that, they spread on their own - and formed hybrids on their own. Most hybrids are sterile, and therefore not new species. But these were found in numbers large enough to be found in the wild, and so it was not just one “manufactured” plant. It was speciation taking place in the wild, leading to a successful population of a new species.

I don’t have any citations beyond the one I gave.


Hm, interesting and cool.


The problem is that species is a man made definition. I am eagerly awaiting the rewrite of what a species is epigenetically and genetically.


Except they found an older one in Europe, Poland I think. 18 million years older.


A book suggestion:

Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed by Douglas Axe.


I’m pretty certain that Dougy didn’t design life either.


OK, Techno. I’m going to try something here. Just a story about a small island somewhere. I’ll tell you about it and you can agree with what I have said or not. If you disagree, then tell me why. If you agree, I will continue the story and see where it gets us. Sounds reasonable? Right. So let’s begin.

I want you to imagine an uninhabited island somewhere. And on the island lives a small bird that looks to all intents and purposes like a chicken. In fact, we’ll call it a chicken. And like quite a few breeds of chicken, this one can hardly fly. A lot of flapping will just get it barely off the gound. Sound reasonable?

Then a boat stops at the island looking for fresh food. When they leave, they have left behind a few small dogs.

Now the dogs like chicken. And so they start hunting them. And are relatively easy to catch because they can’t fly and don’t run very fast. Are we all good so far? Nothing I’ve said sounds unreasonable?


Feel free to comment on the post about the island and the chickens.


No, but next you are going to say that they had to evolve to fly away from the dogs…right?


There’s not much to say.

Most likely: Dogs eat the chickens. I believe it is a myth that chicken bones are deadly, so no more chickens. No more dogs.

Maybe: Dogs were neutered. Chickens outlast dogs.

Maybe: Dogs eat slow chickens. Faster smarter chickens are not eaten and mate. A new chicken “species” is born.

Beep beep.

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