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


That’s absolutely right!

So much so that the two most different dogs are still more genetically related to each other than wolves.

They gray wolf variant that bridged the species is extinct.

Good example there of evolution, if true.

It’s a largely non-scientific term that is mostly the dominion of ID-ers.

I do too. But we can also change.

Ancient homosapiens couldn’t digest cow’s milk. Now we pour it over our cereal.

With the rise of agriculture, we discovered that some folks were able to eventually drink it without bcoming violently ill. As that provided a readily accessible source of nutrition (and thus survival) that mutation rapidly expanded in the population. There are still a few lactose-intolerant folks out there, though. They haven’t been totally bred-out yet :slight_smile:

Not science as taught by the average state university… But suit yourself.


Exactly. Thousands of scientists believe in the irrational, unscientific fantasy of natural abiogenesis, so you do too. Is that how is works?

Sure it did … and the Tooth Fairy wears a pink dress; not a sky blue one as many people believe.

So God was so disinterested in creating life on earth that He delegated that boring task to mindless chemicals?

… according to atheist folklore.

They are the actual bones of non-human primates that existed before God created Adam from dust. It seems you’ve been conned by an atheist fairy tale.


Where would evolution be without untestable stories like this? What we’ve got here is a fairy tale masquerading as science. It’s simply astounding that so many sane, intelligent adults believe this stuff.


In order to swallow the absurd fable of natural abiogenesis - which apparently is due to the amazing creative powers of “chemistry” - one must ignore certain fundamentals of science as well as suspend reason and intellectual integrity. Bizarre.


17.8k have viewed this thread. That means my words are in the minds of 17.8k people.

Job done…


What…you mean like the principle of methodological naturalism?


It seemed to me to be an adequate explanation. If you want something more complex then I suggest you read Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish”. Given the limit on the size of posts here, a more fuller explanation would not fit.



We would not have any religions and would all be atheists. Why do you ask?



Or one person has viewed this thread 17,800 times, and has a very sore mouse finger. :smiley:



'Belief" and “fact” are not synonymous terms, and we well know that mutation, natural selection, and (random) genetic drift very much work in conjunction with each other though a process we call “speciation”, which one can google for more information, or even they can check the Wiki article on it that also provides links to scientific studies.

Mutations can be harmful, helpful, or neither, and one that may be “neither” has the potential of becoming either “harmful” or “helpful” if the environment were to change.

If I were to be wrong, geneticists would be all over me on this, but they ain’t. Matter of fact, in physical anthropology we rely heavily on them, and part of my education in that field involved studying genetics. However, that certainly ain’t my field of specialization.


The only real obstacle for one to possibly reject the basic ToE is a literalist interpretation of the Creation accounts, which makes no sense whatsoever in today’s world as we know so much more of how our universe got put together. And it’s always important to remember that the ToE does not in any way negate Divine creation, plus some biblical scholars even before we knew anything about evolution believed that it was likely that the Creation accounts were allegorical.



“What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky?”

Origen, about 220 AD.



I’m sure that you have some idea it’s meaning. While obviously bowing to authority, it is ultimately to my reason, like conscience, that I must be true. Informed as it is by the facts of science, to be found in physics, chemistry, biology, and the human sciences, freed from the order that they’ve been placed by evolutionary theories, I’ve come to believe that each organism is an expression of a kind of living being originally created, with the potential to diversify. A kind of thing is not limited to having a specific phenotypic or genetic morphology, nor must it be able to successfully mate with other members of its kind, as does the modern concept of species.

A person is a manifestation of humanity, irrespective of the overall appearance, genetic make up or capacity to express its human nature. As far as I can discern, there is nothing more complicated in bringing a first person, the progenitor of all humanity, fully formed, into being, than there is in maintaining each of us in existence in every moment of our lives since the past is gone and cannot be the cause of our presence here and now.

I would refer to myself as an existentialist, reality to be the “in-formed” being of any individual thing, which constitutes the “in-formation” of an encompassing unity, which in turn is a participant in a greater whole, all subsumed ultimately in one Beatific Vision. The existential reality of each of us is as a person created as an individual being in relation to what is other to our selves, and thereby one in the mystical body of Christ, which having been divided in sin, is united by love. The truth of who we are goes way beyond what the natural sciences tell us. Focussing in merely the material and trying to fill in the huge gaps with assumptions of how matter would work, when modern science goes beyond its boundaries and attempts to tell us of our creation, it cannot but present a distorted view; that illusion is evolution.


That’s a great quote from Origen. Thanks Mr. Rossum.

So an allegorical interpretation of Genesis predates the canonization of the NT. Who would have thought it?


Oh, but it is! We just haven’t found it yet.


(Just a little Humor)


The sun and moon might seem big to us, but why would God govern the length of his day by a microscopic moon and star he created? In the scheme of creation, they amount to almost nothing.


Although born in a manger, located on a planet located on one of billions of galaxies, I would hardly think that the place of the Son’s incarnation amounts to “almost nothing”. Given that the heavens are arranged such that they proclaimed the birth and death of our Lord, it would appear that from God’s perspective, they are at the very centre of the cosmos.

And, what is a day but the passage of events, which in an early universe containing far less complexity than what exists in our present time, since the end of creation, would in relative terms be extremely longer periods of “time”. I would think that the length of one day on earth at the time of Jesus, that quantity of cosmic events, is the standard by which the other days are set.

At any rate, a day constitutes a cycle of time which God brought forth into existence from eternity, each of His work-days, representing one level of creation, which utilized what had previously been created in the formation of the new.

I suppose there exists quite a difference in what we believe to be “the grand scheme of things”.


Who can understand God?

2 Peter 3:8 = But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.


The fossil record is an excellent reason to doubt that the “evolutionary” history of life is a natural process, as is the fact that no one has ever witnessed one genus evolving into another genus.


Translation: “There is very little evidence of the innumerable transitions predicted by the theory of 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.