Skip to main content

Doubters of Darwin, here's your evidence Comments

Doubters of Darwin, here's your evidence. According to researchers from the University of Tulsa in Oklahoma, swallows are evolving before our eyes, developing shorter wings to help them maneuver and avoid cars. Continue Reading

1 - 10 of 27 Comments

  1. Pedro Guerrero
    1 year ago

    Some comments indicate that we can believe in Darwinian Evolution if we also believe the process was guided by God. I don't see how this can be. First now we take two things for which we have no evidence and mix them. Trying to please everyone, no one is pleased. Second, and of much importance, this requires us to rethink the whole idea of sin. Common understanding is that "thru sin death came into the world" and Darwinian Evolution basically amounts to "thru death higher life came into the world". So is death the consequence of sin or not? Did God use a cruel process on sinless beings in order that they may later sin and he'd have a reason to punish them with more death? Certainly a different god from the one revealed in Jesus.

    If you sit on a tree's branch, facing the tree, and proceed to cut the branch; what do you suppose would happen?

  2. God gets credit too!
    1 year ago

    God is watching out for his creatures! Evidence? Yes! Darwin? A god? No! A man with a degree of insight? Yes! Theory is not exact science! True! Yes!

  3. Jim
    1 year ago

    What the writer is talking about is micro-evolution, when he states, "The result of this is those [sparrows] with shorter wingspans live longer and produce more offspring which are more likely to carry their parent's trait of shorter wings. Over time, the shorter wingspan will become normal and those with long wingspans will go extinct -- although there will likely be random occurrences of hatchings with longer wings, since this is part of how evolution works. " Even if this were to occur it is micro-evolution, i.e., within the species. I say "even if this were to occur" because the writer has done nothing more than make a giant leap to say that it will.

    Darwinian evolution is macro-evolution with the arrival of new species from old through a supposed millenium of micro-evolutionary changes. This article provides no evidence to support macro-evolution and the writer is mistaken to imply that it does.

  4. Todd
    1 year ago

    I am amazed at what passes for “scientific reasoning” and “proof” with respect to “Darwinism.” The evidence adduced in this article does nothing to prove Darwinism, if by Darwinism we mean that species “evolve” through a process of mutation. There is absolutely no proof of evolution through mutation in this example. The article correctly describes the process of natural selection of characteristics that provide competitive advantages, a process recognized by Aristotle long before Darwin, but it does nothing to prove “evolution by mutation” which is the part of Darwin’s theory that is unproven and, indeed, false.

    The article states: “Natural selection is a simple, if brutal, process by which nature selects those individuals of a species best suited to survive in an environment. In this case, swallows that happen to have shorter wingspans, initially a simple result of random genetic variation, benefit from an advantage over their fellow birds with normal wingspans.” Darwinists love to use the word “random” because they think it indicates that there is no divine plan or design. Genetic variation is not “random” and is not a result of mutation. It is a result of the range of possibilities which exist within the species. Genetic diversity provides the species a competitive advantage, so is part of God’s design.

    Within every species there is a range of variation that occurs naturally amongst all the various characteristics of the species. I have children who are tall and others who are shorter; some have blond hair and others brown. They are all my children and they do not have different characteristics because of mutations, but because the variations fall within the range of possibilities within the species. Likewise with bacteria; some of their offspring have characteristics that make them antibiotic resistant and others do not, but this is not because of mutation. It is because of natural variations within the species. Cellular mutation in a individual is a cancer and tends to the destruction of the individual and, thus, the species, not to its competitive advantage.

  5. Pedro Guerrero
    1 year ago

    Some comments indicate that we can believe in Darwinian Evolution if we also believe the process was guided by God. I don't see how this can be. First now we take two things for which we have no evidence and mix them. Trying to please everyone, no one is pleased. Second, and of much importance, this requires us to rethink the whole idea of sin. Common understanding is that "thru sin death came into the world" and Darwinian Evolution basically amounts to "thru death higher life came into the world". So is death the consequence of sin or not? Did God use a cruel process on sinless beings in order that they may later sin and he'd have a reason to punish them with more death? Certainly a different god from the one revealed in Jesus.

    If you sit on a tree's branch, facing the tree, and proceed to cut the branch; what do you suppose would happen?

  6. Mike
    1 year ago

    Marshall, thanks for the well-written article, and the even more well-written responses to the commenters. I agree completely that to repeat the knee-jerk anti-science rhetoric stolen from the fundamentalists is not only a bad strategy, but at odds with the Church. I belong to the "modern, scientifically literate, Catholic Church" as you put it. And I teach biology (including the obvious fact of evolution) at a Catholic university.

  7. intranet
    1 year ago

    Here comes all the religious fundies pretending to know something about science claiming that this is just micro evolution and macro evolution is fake. We have millions of years of fossil evidence that say otherwise. They've been finding dinosaur fossils in China that resemble tiny velociraptor have FEATHERS. What more evidence do you need to show birds came from dinosaurs? There are primate fossils that have HUMAN characteristics yet There is DNA evidence that shows all life have similar DNA. That's why humans share 98% similar DNA with chimps and 75% similar DNA with earthworms. And for the last time, evolution says nothing about the origin of life. That is a separate field of science called abiogenesis. Evolution only studies about how life forms changes into completely different life forms over long periods of time.

  8. jpaYMCA
    1 year ago

    How embarrassing that the website whose email I use is posting this baseless, ad hominem (OK, ad HOMINES "fundamentalistas"!), and dictatorial article - especially in regard to science, which is a discipline of humility, in the classical sense, i.e., we recognize in most scientific disciplines that we could be wrong. Yet, I sense that the author has no experience as a published author of scientific articles, has done little but accept "common knowledge" as gospel truth, and has no training in the necessary skill of defining terms. He treats not once the different meanings of Darwinism, evolution (micro/macro), creationism(s) - much less the debatable question whether or not this "evidence" constitutes a mutation or is simply the blossoming of an already semi-latent gene in an adept environment.

    Please, dear author: don't post articles before you've done proper research; don't name-call; and don't be so loose with your terminology.

  9. Pedro Guerrero
    1 year ago

    This report is terribly off. Natural selection IS NOT the same as Darwinian Evolution. Current interpretation of Darwin’s theory applies to everything, including the beginning of life. Evolution makes use of Natural Selection; however, Natural Selection has been observed and influenced by humans all the time. Natural Selection does not produce organic matter from inorganic matter. This is what current belief in Darwinian Evolution requires. There’s no plausible mechanism by which inorganic matter can somehow assemble itself to give rise to organic matter which then keeps improving and gaining new traits to produce life.

    Humans have observed, taken advantage of and forced natural selection to achieve new species of the same type of animals or plants. The process is plainly observable in nature. That’s why we have different species of the same type of animal or plant due to geographical isolation or breeding. Natural Selection is used when a breeder intelligently chooses animals or plants of desired traits to produce a new offspring. But a dog type, for example, does not produce a cat type or anything else no matter what. Certain cows are naturally selected to produce more milk or better meat but no cow can be naturally selected into a goat. A grafted tree produces its original fruit, not one that has evolved with new traits. And one can assemble rocks until the end of time and smash them together and all one gets is rock dust, no natural selection into even one of the most basic organic component of a cell.

    This sort of lingo only brings confusion. When discussing a subject it is paramount to have a clear understanding and consensus of the subject's definition. The definition of evolution as a change in something is normally understood and accepted by everyone because it is plainly rooted in evidence; it is observable and reasonably deduced and proven. A singer's singing has evolved as the singer has mastered techniques. The singers voice or ability do not pass to the offspring. What can pass is the inherent trait that allowed the singer to sing.

    Antibiotic resistance is not a gained trait, the organism did not evolve; quite the opposite. Those who weren't susceptible to the particular antibiotic survived and reproduced and the result is "resistant" to the antibiotic. Clearly different from "developing" resistance as using Darwinian Evolution would imply.

    If we define a species as a different type of something then [normal] evolution applies and is observable. Example: Horses, zebras; lions, tigers, etc. This is part of Darwinian Evolution but the two aren't interchangeable. In [current] Darwinian terms all the above are results of the evolution of something else.

    Unfortunately even science books present evolution as Darwinian Evolution and so we end with reports such as the above. Sorry, but Mark needs to be more scientific in his reporting…

    Pedro Guerrero

  10. schoolgirl
    1 year ago


    A change in structure, function, or behavior by which a species or individual improves its chance of survival in a specific environment. Adaptations develop as the result of natural selection operating on random genetic variations that are capable of being passed from one generation to the next. Variations that prove advantageous will tend to spread throughout the population.
    A Closer Look The gazelle is extremely fast, and the cheetah is even faster. These traits are adaptations—characteristics or behaviors that give an organism an edge in the struggle for survival. Darwinian theory holds that adaptations are the result of a two-stage process: random variation and natural selection. Random variation results from slight genetic differences. For example, one cheetah in a group may be slightly faster than the others and thus have a better chance of catching a gazelle. The faster cheetah therefore has a better chance of being well-fed and living long enough to produce offspring. Since the cheetah's young have the same genes that made this parent fast, they are more likely to be fast than the young of slower cheetahs. The process is repeated in each generation, and thereby great speed becomes an adaptation common to cheetahs. This same process of natural selection, in which the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated, also favors the fastest gazelles. Though evolution, in this case, may be thought of as an “arms race,” animals may also adapt to their environment in a process known as adaptive radiation, as the so-called Darwin's finches in the Galápagos have done. On the islands, one type of finch gradually gave rise to some 13 different species of birds with differently shaped beaks, each species having adapted to its varying food niches and feeding habits. And, though we seldom think of it, humans also have an impact on an organism's adaptation to its environment. For instance, because of the misuse of antibiotics, some disease-causing bacteria have rapidly adapted to become resistant to the drugs.
    The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.


Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment

Newsletter Sign Up

Daily Readings

Reading 1, Revelation 18:1-2, 21-23; 19:1-3, 9
After this, I saw another angel come down from heaven, with ... Read More

Psalm, Psalms 100:2, 3, 4, 5
serve Yahweh with gladness, come into his presence with songs ... Read More

Gospel, Luke 21:20-28
'When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then you must ... Read More

Saint of the Day

November 27 Saint of the Day

St. James Intercisus
November 27: James was a favorite of King Yezdigerd I of Persia and a ... Read More