Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?


#970

Everything is interconnected, but those interconnections are not static. They are always in a state of flux. And this still does not prove that all the functions you mentioned had to come into existence all at once.


#971

They did at one point in time.


#972

Forget dinosaurs. And no-one is moving any goalposts. We’ve just gor some chickens on an island. They make their nest on the ground, on dead braches on the ground and on low level branches. It makes no difference because there are no predators to worry about.

When the dogs arrive, the chooks that can reach the low level branches last longer than those that can"t. So there is a genetic tendency for the ability to reach low level brancbes to increase. Because those that can’t are taken out of the gene pool.

And then we have the arms race.

Reasonable? I have to say that there is nothing I have said that amounts to any kind of evolution, yet alone macro evolution, and nothing that denies the existence of God. This is all quite straight forward and happens in nature constantly.

Agreed?


#973

The only alternative is from the bottom up, but that can’t work because their was no food for the bottom to eat.


#974

I don’t know what you are getting at. They have a common origin, definitely not morphology. The organ doesn’t decide anything. It develops according to the interplay of matter under the direction of information stored in the folds of very, very complex molecules. Matter is the “code” that is processed in the “computer” that is the spirit.

That is the way things are. It all works pretty well until we get sick. And sickness and death entered the world with original sin.

I’m not a fan of the design paradigm, but it makes a lot of sense to me. Much more than vague ideas about random natural internal and external determinants leading to our being here having this discussion.


#975

Why is that such a good thing, there are all kinds of birds that live and make their nest on the ground right now.


#976

So you are saying that anything that was taken out the gene pool, helped to direct and guide random mutations?


#977

It’s not a good thing or a bad thing. Well, unless you are one of the chooks that can’t reach the low branches and get eaten. So let’s not confuse things. Let’s just concentrate on these chickens and these dogs.

We have a situation that results in an arms race between predator and its prey. Chooks that can get higher up the tree live longer and therefore breed chooks that are better at doing that. Dogs that can climb better get to live longer and therefore breed dogs that are better at doing that.

So if the situation, the environment, stays the same, what do you think might happen?


#978

Animals get taken out of the gene pool because they aren’t as good as surviving the environment as those that do. Leaving, obviously, the ones that are.

Random mutations are just that. Random. Some help the organism survive, some are a disadvantage and some are neutral. If a random mutation occurs within a chicken population that allows some to flap to low branches and there are no predators that makes that an advantage, it is at best neutral. No benefit and no disadvantage.

But if the environment changes and dogs are introduced, then it becomes, by that very fact, beneficial.


#979

About as far you can go with this is…Selective Breeding. You can only extrapolate and speculate if this might cause random mutations to create whole new species of animals.


#980

How do you know this , can you give an example of such animals ?


#981

This isn’t selective breeding. No-one is making any conscious decisions to try to reach a particular result. This is all happening naturally. The random mutations don’t in themselves create new species. They are possibly a disadvantage in which case the organism loses out and is removed from the gene pool or it advantageous and the organism remains in the pool and produces offspring that have that genetic advantage.

And we still just have chickens and dogs. No-one has mentioned new species or even any drastic changes.

This isn’t even micro evolution. It’s just some quite reasonable changes in which organisms survive and which don’t.


#982

If a random mutation means that you can’t run or climb or see or swim or fly or hear as well as other members of your species, then there is a small yet significantly important chance that those without that mutation will survive longer that you will and that mutation will be bred out.

If it’s an advantageous mutation, it will remain for the same reason. It’s valid for every single organism, except those who can control their environment. Such as us.


#983

How good at survival a animal would be if it has to go from one species to another. It’s half one thing and half another. It doesn’t know if it’s coming or going.What kind of food it’s going to eat.What kind defences it’s going to have,what kind of new place it has to live.Where is a mate that is in the same stage of development as it is in for reproduction …on and on…


#984

How do you know if this has ever happen ?


#985

Elephants bred in captivity would not be affected by this.


#986

How do you apply this to a monkey changing into a man, a rodent changing into a whale, and dinosaur changing into a chicken ?


#987

Slow down. We’re not talking about speciation. And an organism is never half of one thing and half another. It is all what it is at any given moment and at that moment it will remain exactly as it is unless there are changes in the environment or a random mutation that will decrease its chances of surviving long enough to pass on its genes.

Stick with the chickens. They are still chickens. Nothing has changed, except that most of them are now more adept at gaining some height and reaching low level branches. Which increases their chances of survival. That’s all.

That’s all I need you to understand. Again, I am not talking about one creature turning into another. Just small, incremental changes that allow a greater chance of survival. They are still chickens. Agreed?


#988

This is common sense. If you and a group of friends are in the woods and are attacked by a bear, you don’t have to run faster than the bear to survive. You just need to run faster than the slowest runner or climb a tree better than the worst climber. The bear will eat the guy that doesn’t have the benefit of your running or climbing genes.

Watch any wild life documentary. The lions eat the antelopes that are easiest to catch. The slowest ones . The least fit.

The dogs on our island eat the chooks that can’t escape by flapping to low slung branches. It’s the most efficient way to stay alive. That’s the way nature works.


#989

Nor do humans. Two humans can produce a physical body, but they cannot produce a human soul. AIUI God directly produces the soul for each and every human alive, not that person’s parents.

Adam was produced in the same way as the rest of us, a material body from material biological processes and a soul direct from God.

rossum


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.