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


An eye has a lot more than one cell. A single celled organism cannot evolve an eye, just a light detector, as you say. Eyes had to wait until multicellular organisms evolved.

Every generation has mutations, for example the average human has about 75 mutations in his or her DNA. Natural selection sorted through those mutations in the population and selected the beneficial ones. Plants do not get an advantage from eyes, so they only have light detectors, not eyes. Where eyes confer an advantage, eyes have evolved.




The conflict is between evolution, you may wish to clarify what it means for yourself, and the truth of creation, by which beings are brought into existence and not transformed from previous kinds of being. We are no more derivatives of a simian beast than of the fundamental forces of nature, but a new creation altogether, as are fish, birds, cats and cactuses, all of which diversified from their original God-given form. The progenitor of humanity is God Himself. The conflict I perceive is in your separation of the material from the spiritual. Ultimately, all is an infinite collection of different forms within a hierarchy of being, from their basis in “light” to the heights to be found in mankind, which through Jesus Christ communes within the Trinity.

1 Like


The false dichotomy is the separation of the body from the spirit. We are a unity of being. When we initiate an action, beyond the spiritual act of Will is the psychological reality of the world which we perceive and think about, all of which is a fluctuating pattern of neurochemical activity - one. To reduce our body to something that can be repaired may be necessary for medical procedures, but it must be always remembered that our reality is of the person, originating in one who was all humanity, and in whom we all have fallen, to be reunited in ourselves and with one another in Christ, brought to the Core of Exitence, the eternal Love from whom we spring.

1 Like


Buff, you keep posting that thing about modern synthesis, you realize the scientific community started moving away from it around the time KISS was a still new band, right?

1 Like


Alright, one last post, because… wow…

Evolution is the physical process whereby a species adopts qualities and traits which, over the course of time, result in an iteration which is no longer biologically compatible with it progenitors, and would therefore be considered a separate species.

Prove it.

That is an assertion about the physical machinations of our universe. It is therefore completely within the bounds of the sciences to make observations and determinations about. I want you, using scientific evidence, to prove that scientific assertion.

I agree with the bolded. Every last species is the result of God’s will. God gave every last one of them exactly the form and abilities they were intended to have at any given point in time throughout the whole of universal history. I do not dispute this. I have never once tried to dispute this.

My arguments have to do with how He gave them that form, not that he gave them.

I once again agree, and differ only in the means by which His progeny were given physical form. I also don’t discount the possibility that humanity is a spontaneous creation completely distinct from previous species. I do, however, think it would be very odd for Him to create so many species which are human-like, seemingly showing evolutionary development, and then turn around and create the final form through some other process. it’s possible, but I don’t think it’s a reasonable conclusion given what we see in the fossil record. If I’m wrong, then I look forward to learning so, because that means I am in Heaven and get to see the whole of God’s plan.



We are a body soul composite, as is every last living thing in existence. However, that does not have any impact on the question of evolution. If God created us as we are, then He also created our souls as they are. Fine, no issue. If He used evolution, then every step along the way, whatever life there was was imbued with a soul proper to its form. When He got to humanity, He imbued us with a rational soul, rather than an animal or plant soul, which separates us from all that came before. That is also perfectly fine.

I am only “separating” them in so far as the question of how is concerned. Either way, whether our physical forms were created instantaneously or allowed to develop over 13 billion years, every living thing in our reality has a spiritual and physical dimension to it.

I agree with this. You do understand that, don’t you? Everything in creation is under God, regardless of the physical mechanics by which that creation occurred. I really don’t think I put it any clearer than that. Yet, despite repeating this ad nauseum, you still seem to think that I reject this fact.

Whatever, like I said, last post for a while. I’ve already spent too much time on this discussion today.

1 Like


Thank you.



Aka - devolution.



I’m still trying to understand how first life supported itself without no ecosystem or food chain in place, in the beginning, there was nothing .

1 Like


To my way of thinking the variety species have arisen from different kinds of organisms originally created whole. The potential for their particular expression of the kind of thing they are, was built into the original form. Species did not arise from information being gradually added to some prokaryotic genome, but rather as a result of self-expression of a first creature, through epigenetic processes linked to the psychophysical structure of their environment, in short the relationship each individual being has with its world. If one considers the variety of canines the world over, it is possible to understand how differently an original creature has manifested itself psychosocially and morphologically, while ever being an expression of its kind of being.

1 Like


At that level you should think of it more as microscopic chemical reactions rather than food.

The earliest life likely “fed” on hydrogen sulphide and carbon monoxide. Which naturally occur.

1 Like


Life that devours other life didn’t exist until 1.2 billion years ago.

Yes, this means that for the first two thirds of the history of life, all life was exclusively vegan. :rofl:



You’re so close to the truth…

Instead of God creating life with a fixed wardrobe - “You can change into this when you need to”…

He created life and gave it a needle and thread - “Sew whatever outfit you need and alter it when you need”.



“I Am Who Am” will start this whole thing going by creating the archetypes. Excellent!

1 Like


Sound delicious :crazy_face:



We differ in how He gave the various kinds of living beings their form, because we differ on what it is that God brings into being. The fundamental nature of anything in creation, I hold to be existential, grounded in Existence itself, who brings everything forth from nothing. The “soul” of anything, what it is in itself as itself, known by God, that is what is primary. What is created in all its moments is an individual expression of the kind of thing it is. it’s constituent structure consists of lesser forms of being united in that thing that it is. It begins with the creation of “light” and the subsequent formation of subatomic and atomic forms of being that relate in the simplest of ways and were used to form this material universe. The creation of the first living beings utilized that structure in their formation. The appearance of the successive layers in the hierarchy of existence would be represented by the six days of Genesis. On each day something new was brought into being, utilizing the information that constitutes was had previously been created. That God created mankind through one first man pretty much dictates that He did not do so within the womb of an animal, the female which you apparently would believe contributed half her genome to produce a human body. The genome is one with its environment in the cell, which is one with the body that originates from a first cell, and one with the psychological nature that makes all this communication possible, made so by the order imposed on this totality by the spirit, making it all one unity of being -the person in the world.



Not “nothing”, but chemicals. The first life ate chemicals. See chemotroph.




rossum, you can’t extrapolate what happens now in a rich oceanic ecosystem to what might of happen so-called billions years ago when there was absolutely nothing there. It like comparing the Moon’s ecosystem to the Earth’s ecosystem.



A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

Absolutely fantastic talk.

1 Like



I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me , because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this , and get that . I mean, ab initio , I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.
I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, “I don’t understand this”? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.
Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.
I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”
If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I’m not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have.
But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.


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.