Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true


Not Darwinism specifically, but evolution. That’s why I prefaced it by saying “for those that believe in evolution.”

I just like their videos. It’s neat to see the development of species outlined, and see how a species transitioned over time.



I just want to hit on this more. Are you asserting that evolution postulates that when the environment changes, no species will go extinct? That is incorrect. It postulates that those species most well suited to adapt to the new environment will dominate, and those within that species whose genes are best suited for that environment (more fur, etc.) will propagate more efficiently and spread their genes through the rest of the species. I don’t understand why you think this is an objection to evolution.



That microevolution, I’m talking about things like banana trees morphing into spruce trees.



The mechanism is exactly the same. spruce and banana are pretty distantly related but I challenge you to draw boundaries. Can a mango tree and banana tree each evolve from a common ancestor bearing soft fruit?



Can an individual piranha morph into a cold-water fish? Of course not.

If the selective pressure is gentle enough to not quickly kill the species, can a group of piranha evolve into your cold water fish? Absolutely.

That’s essentially what has already happened. Believe it or not, your Canadian fish and that piranha already share a common ancestor. Their great-great (add a million more “greats”) grandad was the same fish, which was likely neither a piranha nor a cold-water fish.

1 Like


Yes, they died evolution didn’t see it coming and made them fit ahead of time.



Probably not, they started from different base points.

I mean, given a slow enough transition it’s theoretically possible, but the banana tree is an offshoot from shrubs that initially developed in tropical zones, whereas spruce trees developed in the colder regions from plants that were more suited to the cold.

More likely, if the environment changed enough that an area that previously supported banana trees becomes capable of supporting spruce trees, the banana trees would just die out and the spruce would develop from a different set of trees / shrubs that migrate in from an already-colder climate area.

I know what you’re trying to ask, and the answer is yes, it’s possible, but that’s not really how it works.



Are siberian tigers and lions the same “kind”? Why is it impossible for a cold-dwelling fish to evolve from a warm-dwelling fish but possible for a cold-dwelling tiger to evolve from a warm-dwelling large cat?



Is this… is this what you think biological evolution is? that evolution will “see it coming and make species fit ahead of time”?

1 Like


Yes, that’s true.



Mango trees produce more Mango trees, and Banana trees produce more Banana trees, the common ancestor is pure speculation.



Bananas are a great example, actually.

Before humans selectively cultivated them (so artificial selection rather than natural selection), the fruit contained a lot of large, hard seeds that made eating it unpleasant.

They’ve been cultivated to promote genetic traits we like and eliminate genetic traits we dont like.

Evolution in action, baby.



How does evolution make anything fit for a new environment when it takes evolution millions of years to do anything?



That’s not evolution but selective breeding. If selective breeding was not possible, the old bananas would be the only type available.

1 Like


Well, when an environment changes rapidly, most species do go extinct. We see that. but when an environment changes gradually, those species already most suited for the new environment evolve traits that make them even more fit for the new environment. If you actually watched the videos I posted earlier this would be very obvious. I’m actually amazed you aren’t understanding how this works and am tempted to suggest you’re trolling.

How do you suggest some species survived the ice ages? The environment changed dramatically during that time.



Why can human selection produce genetic change but natural selection can’t?



They’re the same thing.

Your selective breeding IS evolution. Where people have placed artificial selection forces on bananas, they change.

Nature does the same thing. A place gets hotter. Colder. A new rival species moves in.

Natural selection IS selective breeding.



No, it’s not. If the bananas could not be modified due to built-in genetics then they would not be. The various show dog breeds is another example. If the genes won’t allow it, it can’t be done.

1 Like


Then the species goes extinct.

This is the fate of 99.9% of the species that have roamed the planet.

Species death is the norm. That’s why almost none of the things living today are found in the fossil record.

Things that existed 100 million years ago are all gone. And things that exist today didn’t exist 100 million years ago.

Living fossils are the exception, not the norm.



“Why are dinosaurs gone” and “why are there no fossils of people” are good questions you need to answer if you want to suggest a theory better than evolution.


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.