Denial of Evolution VI.

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

What is critically important, in my opinion, for the person who seeks to make a determination, is for that person to see for themselves how the many disciplines related to evolutionary theory feed into and compliment each other, not just as part of collaborative efforts, but independently and acros s time

Firstly, I'm not trying to make a determination. My question refers to your determination, and how it comes about. In the religion forum many atheists ask ''why do people believe in God'' without ever feeling the need to read up on the scriptures (the literal source of information).

Paleobiology, geology, organic chemistry, are just a few of the disciplines related to evolutionary the theory.

This is precisely why evolution is referred to as the most well-evidenced theory science has ever produced. There is literally nothing like it.

You can say that again.

So what you need to do is both of the following:

1) free yourself from any obligation to strictly adhere to a theology that demands an a priori rejection and
2) read relatively extensively on the topic

I don't need to do anything, you are the one who needs to do something, like answer a perfectly simple question. I'm not asking for a detailed scientific explanation, just a simple answer. If evolution is true, it shouldn't be a problem to you.

Let's say you ask me if I think God is real, I say yes, then you ask why do I think God is real. Would you apreciate me saying ''you must study Bhagavad Gita, and the Bhagavat Purana'' before I tell you. What would you think?

An excellent book to start with, in my opinion, is Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. In fact reading just this one book will equip you to engage in the sort of meaningful, progressive and ultimately productive discussion that's needed here, because among other things it provides a good overview of the content of the main categories of evidence along with plenty of nice juicy details.

I've seen Jerry Coyne in action a few times, plus I seen his ''Why Evolution is True'' presentation (over 1.5 hours) which I imagine is iterating what is in the book.

The description of the dog like creature, evolving into a whale for example, while it looks great in picture, and the narration that describes the picture, is not in my opinion sufficient to accept as true. Obviously I could be wrong, but I just don't think the morphological changes that would be necessary for such an overhaul, is convincingly, or adequately explained.
This is why I'm asking you, at what point do you accept this as true, because I honestly can't see why you would. I could see why you accept it as an explanation, a work in progress, but not to the point where you beat people over the head by insulting them because they don't see what you see.

The problem is, however, that I recommended this book to you 2 years ago and you show no signs of having bothered to read it (or anything like it, for that matter). If you had, you would have an understanding of the scope of the topic that would preclude you from doing silly things like asking for mere summaries in threads like this one.

Jerry Coyne is no different than any other atheist scientist advertising Darwinism as true.

This thread is not a scientific one. It is entitled ''Denial of Evolution'' and is most likely designed to attract people who ''Deny'' evolution, although I would say that ''denial'' is the wrong word in a lot of cases, as it assumes that evolution (darwinian) is true and therefore anyone who doesn't accept it deny's it. My line of enquiry seeks to determine why it's true, then I can determine if my position is one of denial.

The barrage of insults is likely to continue, not so much because you reject evolution, but because you show a disdain for the reasonable requirement of learning about it.

That is a very poor reason for why you subject people who do not think like you, to insults, mocking, character assisination, and all the other tacticts that has been employed my explicit atheists.

But it doesn't stop there. You soon to attempt to justify that disdain by pointing to all the ID proponents who have done some learning, as if their adherence to a theology that demands an a priori rejection of evolution somehow magically leaves their objectivity intact.

As far as I know (as a theist) the evidence as explained by the ID proponents do not use ''theology'', and do not have a priori rejection of evolution.

This is, unfortunately, you in a nutshell, at least with respect to the topic at hand anyway. Nothing has changed, and it's likely that nothing will ever change (although I certainly hope otherwise, if you are indeed interested in the truth about human origins).

What exactly is the ''topic at hand''?

jan.

 

[billvon]

I've seen Jerry Coyne in action a few times, plus I seen his ''Why Evolution is True'' presentation (over 1.5 hours) which I imagine is iterating what is in the book.

The description of the dog like creature, evolving into a whale for example, while it looks great in picture, and the narration that describes the picture, is not in my opinion sufficient to accept as true. Obviously I could be wrong, but I just don't think the morphological changes that would we necessary for such an overhaul, is convincingly, or adequately explained.

That's fine! The next step would be to look at the evidence. You could go look at these fossils:


Indohyus - the first animal with any aquatic adaptations. It had very dense bones so it could easily dive under water and away from predators. Looked sort of like a raccoon.
Pakicetidae - slightly more streamlined. Lived near fresh water streams and lakes.
Ambulocetidae - much larger, much better swimmer. Long tail for swimming. Lived in fresh and salt water.
Remingtonocetidae - now had a longer/flatter tail. Still had four legs. Lived in salt water almost exclusively.
Protocetidae - now had only vestigial limbs; it swam full time in the ocean. First one that looked sort of like a whale (dolphin actually.)
Basilosauridae - looked a lot like modern whales but without echolocation.
Dorudontinae
Early baleen whales - developed echolocation to allow life deep underwater.

Once you examined these fossils you could better make up your own mind.

 

[iceaura]

So thunderstorm cells are alive, and old mules are not?

Give it up - the bullshit definitions.......
Biology online

jan.

The distinguishing characteristic of bullshit is not that it’s false, but that it’s presented without regard for its truth or relevance.
Your presentation of definitions here is bullshit, and I illustrated that by posing a counterexample (thunderstorm cells vs mules) you simply can’t handle in the terms of your posting here. That is because your use of definitions is dishonest in the first place – you are trying to hide your lack of argument, conceal willful ignorance and invalid reasoning behind a fog of terms and demands for a specious rigor.

Let's not fool ourselves, even if religious people understood evolution and abiogenesis, they would still believe god was behind it, because they want to.
Can you explain what is wrong with that?

Nothing of importance here, if it’s honest – which it rarely is. Let’s see you post something like this: “I have no argument against standard evolutionary theory or any of its normal applications; I just believe God is behind it all because I want to” .

I have done my research,

No, you haven’t.

If the person who takes biology ends up being closer to the truth because of his/her taking biology, then I would agree with you, but that is clearly not the case. It also implies that people who take biology are closer to the truth than people who don't, therefore everyone who studies biology
knows more truth than those that don't.

Do you contend that certain knowledge takes one farther from “the truth” – that anyone seeking “the truth” must take care to remain ignorant of certain matters?
That was once a major tenet of the Christian Church, but has fallen into disfavor of late. Your language is as always vague and slippery there, but you can clarify easily: do you think that biological knowledge is at best irrelevant (as you stated) and possibly inimical (you implied) to nearing “the truth” about the origin and development of living beings?

Microevolution refers to changes within a specific type or kind of organisms, but the descendants always remain the same type or kind as the ancestor.

Macroevolution refers to major changes over time eventually creating new types of organisms that end up being different ancestoral types.

As always, bullshit: a pretense of definition and rigor worded so that it cannot be contradicted because it makes no specific assertion. It is no accident that you cannot be held accountable for any part of it and can bs your way through any argument or counterexample. You know full well what you are going to do with the terms “kind” and “type” when faced with some of the thousands of documented examples of evolutionary descent: claim that the Galapagos evolution of new species produced the same “type“(all “just finches”), wolves are the same “kind” of animal as chihuahuas and coyotes, those fantastic modifications of shape and size and diet and so forth on Hawaii are all just fruit flies – the “same kind/type etc” – and so forth.

my biggest "beef" with evolution is that it proceeds fast, slow, or not at all.

Are you likewise baffled when you see leaves change speed as they drift down from trees in the fall?
Can you supply us with an example of any biological process that proceeds at one constant rate indefinitely?

i imagine worms have been around a very long time.

They have. And they have been subjected to environments that varied in all kinds of ways – sometimes merely by being separated into different continents and genetically isolated. And there are as Darwinian evolution predicts (and ID based theories do not) hundreds of different kinds, types, “species”, of worms - sorted by physical separation as well as local environment.

Or are there people here who claim that all worms are the same "kind" or "type" of organism? And if so, will they demand to be treated with respect, and defend their continuing and willful biological ignorance as no handicap in their search for biological "truth"?

 

[leopold]

In Leopold's defense he hasn't ascribed any of that to divine intervention.

While he is certainly an evolution denier, I don't think he's a traditional creationist. He's been going on about "molecular evolution" as if that's different from what happens in nature, and I think he just read that phrase somewhere (perhaps an intelligent design wedge paper) misunderstood it and is now using it to buttress his claims. I think that if he has an objective it's likely "hey, look at me, I'm a smart free thinker and I have all these ideas that make me stand out from the pack" rather than trying to push creationism.

(I may be wrong; he may talk about his 'molecular evolution' thing for a month then spring the 'so it can't happen naturally!' conclusion, but I doubt it.)

talk about someone that pulls stuff out of their butt . . .
you are 100% wrong bill and it's a laugh, seriously

 

[leopold]

Can you supply us with an example of any biological process that proceeds at one constant rate indefinitely?

i believe the gestation rate of human females is a constant.
i also believe i can find many more such examples.

 

[billvon]

I don't think he's a traditional creationist. . . .
(I may be wrong; he may talk about his 'molecular evolution' thing for a month then spring the 'so it can't happen naturally!' conclusion, but I doubt it.)

you are 100% wrong bill and it's a laugh, seriously

OK. So I am wrong; you're a creationist. My mistake.

 

[Rav]

Let's say you ask me if I think God is real, I say yes, then you ask why do I think God is real. Would you apreciate me saying ''you must study Bhagavad Gita, and the Bhagavat Purana'' before I tell you. What would you think?

This is disingenuous bullshit. First of all, there isn't a single important and/or relevant question that you've ever asked me about my stance on this topic that I haven't properly answered in some previous exchange, and watched you ignore and then quiz me about again at some future time as if it never happened. This is yet another example.

If you play dumb and press me on this, you wont like the result, because I'm tired of your utter nonsense.

The description of the dog like creature, evolving into a whale for example, while it looks great in picture, and the narration that describes the picture, is not in my opinion sufficient to accept as true. Obviously I could be wrong, but I just don't think the morphological changes that would we necessary for such an overhaul, is convincingly, or adequately explained.

Of course it hasn't been adequately explained. It was an overview. You exposed yourself to nothing more than a short presentation.

This is why I'm asking you, at what point do you accept this as true, because I honestly can't see why you would. I could see why you accept it as an explanation, a work in progress, but not to the point where you beat people over the head by insulting them because they don't see what you see.

How in the world can you possibly expect to properly see anything when you give it little more than a cursory glance?

Once again, this is where you deserve to be beaten over the head. It's not your ignorance that is annoying, it is the willfulness of it. You can't see when you don't look. How do you not understand this simple concept? How is it not clear to you by now the the scope of the topic is such that you can't properly tackle it with the very minimal amount of effort you seem willing to expend? This is what you call stubborn ignorance.

If the problem is instead simply that it's not a topic that you consider important enough to devote any real time to, that's actually OK in and of itself. But then you have an obligation to either shut the fuck up about it, or simply admit that you're clueless.

Jerry Coyne is no different than any other atheist scientist advertising Darwinism as true.

What does atheism have to do with evolution? There are countless practicing theists and people who believe in some sort of "higher power" who embrace the truth about the origin of species as well.

The barrage of insults is likely to continue, not so much because you reject evolution, but because you show a disdain for the reasonable requirement of learning about it.

That is a very poor reason for why you subject people who do not think like you, to insults, mocking, character assisination, and all the other tacticts that has been employed my explicit atheists.

Bullshit. This is the single most understandable and justifiable reason to mock someone. There are few things less deserving of respect than the mentality of a person who demands to be taken seriously when spouting off on a topic they understand very little about.

As far as I know (as a theist) the evidence as explained by the ID proponents do not use ''theology'', and do not have a priori rejection of evolution.

This is yet another example of your disingenuous bullshit. I've shown how you are wrong about this in a previous discussion by providing quotes from the key figures behind the ID movement in the act of revealing the underlying fundamentalist religious agenda. See here: http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/ID/HorsesMouth-BP007.pdf

 

[leopold]

I'd be more then willing to enforce this upon you. Are you volunteering?

i would almost give everything i could ever have for ready access to the worlds knowledge.

 

[Aqueous Id]

This thread is not a scientific one. It is entitled ''Denial of Evolution'' and is most likely designed to attract people who ''Deny'' evolution,

It was started by a religious person to draw out the pro-science folks. He was arguing that evolution must not be true simply because he doesn't believe it is. The replies include some very basic science (I have mostly kept mine at the high-school level) plus quite a bit more.

The thread was renamed and sent to the Denial area after a substantial number of anti-science and anti-evolution posts changed the initial direction.

although I would say that ''denial'' is the wrong word in a lot of cases, as it assumes that evolution (darwinian) is true and therefore anyone who doesn't accept it deny's it.

Yes, it's true. But we don't equate denial with opposing science. It's for denying the laws of nature.

My line of enquiry seeks to determine why it's true, then I can determine if my position is one of denial.

You can declare yourself a denialist by answering 'false' to any of the following:

•A species is a population of organisms that interbreeds and has fertile offspring.
•Living organisms have descended with modifications from species that lived before them
•Natural selection explains how this evolution has happened:
—More organisms are produced than can survive because of limited resources.
—Organisms struggle for the necessities of life; there is competition for resources.
—Individuals within a population vary in their traits; some of these traits are heritable -- passed on to offspring.
—Some variants are better adapted to survive and reproduce under local conditions than others.
—Better-adapted individuals (the "fit enough") are more likely to survive and reproduce, thereby passing on copies of their genes to the next generation.
—Species whose individuals are best adapted survive; others become extinct

If you say all of these are true, then you're doing fine. There really is no argument.

 

[Aqueous Id]

What does atheism have to do with evolution?

I would even ask what the association has to do with Vedic scriptures. As far as I know, it's only brought up by Christian fundamentalists.

 

[iceaura]

i believe the gestation rate of human females is a constant.

I have no idea what you think you're talking about, but I'll bet you can't define it so it's a constant even within one particular woman's one pregnancy - let alone across a population or species.

As you might have guessed from the fact that you don't actually know anything about gestation - why do you guys have such a hard time recognizing a lack of knowledge and comprehension in yourselves?

Meanwhile, the actual request was this:

Can you supply us with an example of any biological process that proceeds at one constant rate indefinitely?

Even if human gestation could be somehow provided with a rate, and that rate proved to be constant, it ends by definition, it's finite - the key aspect of "indefinitely" is completely missing.

i also believe i can find many more such examples.

I don't.

 

[Trippy]

This thread is not a scientific one. It is entitled ''Denial of Evolution'' and is most likely designed to attract people who ''Deny'' evolution.

BS.
Scroll to the top of the browser window.
Look in the top left hand corner, tell me what you see.
Sciforums : SCIENCE : Biology & Genetics.
You're in a science subforum, in the science part of a science forum.

I moved this thread from General Science & Technology to here, in Biology & Genetics.
I renamed the thread from "Questions about the big bang and evolution" to "Denial of Evvolution VI" because I felt it was a more accurate reflection of the direction the dicussion had taken.

These actions were taken only after I gave the thread what I considered to be a good and genuine opportunity to evolve some genuine discussion and answer more than just what I considered to be blatant creationist trolling.

The BS you are spouting has nothing to do with reality and reflects nothing more than your paranoid fnatasies.

 

[leopold]

I would even ask what the association has to do with Vedic scriptures. As far as I know, it's only brought up by Christian fundamentalists.

the concepts of god and the supernatural are completely irrelevant to the discussion.
atheists and creationists, BOTH of you can sit on the bench.

 

[rpenner]

i believe the gestation rate of human females is a constant.

Data please?

Anything between 38 and 42 weeks is considered normal, so there is 5% variation about the "normal" 40 weeks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestation#Humans
About 20% of human births are, however, more that two weeks different than this "normal" 40 weeks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy#Duration
And a baby is not even considered "premature" until it is born more than 3 weeks shorter than this "normal" 40 weeks, with some as much as 18 weeks early. Typically they need advanced medical care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/25/worlds-most-premature-baby_n_853389.html

So the suggestion that human gestations are "constant" are a bad bet with premature babies surviving up to at least 45% "early" and labor typically not being induced until the baby is 5-10% "late." Why, unless you were either a bald liar or an overconfident and ignorant buffoon, would you make such a suggestion?

Why would either a bald liar or an overconfident and ignorant buffoon be tolerated on a science site?

// Edited to emphasize MAD/BAD/SAD

 

[iceaura]

the concepts of god and the supernatural are completely irrelevant to the discussion.
atheists and creationists, BOTH of you can sit on the bench.

The creationists of course, including the ID wing, have never contributed relevant sense - but if deities are irrelevant, the atheist folks are of course welcome and well fitted: they lack an irrelevancy, a more reliable basis for intellectual contribution than constant efforts to exclude the influence of one.

 

[leopold]

i consider it (gestastion rate) to be a constant.
the majority of the births are within 5% of the due date, and like you stated labor is induced when the birth is 10% overdue.
also, what biological process in nature has access to "advanced medical technology"?
anyone that makes such a claim must be mad/bad/sad.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav

This is disingenuous bullshit. First of all, there isn't a single important and/or relevant question that you've ever asked me about my stance on this topic that I haven't properly answered in some previous exchange, and watched you ignore and then quiz me about again at some future time as if it never happened. This is yet another example.

I meant in general. Such a tactic would render the discussion pointless.

If you play dumb and press me on this, you wont like the result, because I'm tired of your utter nonsense.

Relax Rav, it's not personal.

Of course it hasn't been adequately explained. It was an overview. You exposed yourself to nothing more than a short presentation.

Okay, but the presentation was part of a presentation as to ''why evolution is true'', not ''an introduction to evolution''. I saw no reason to accept that evolution is true, other than to believe his claim.

How in the world can you possibly expect to properly see anything when you give it little more than a cursory glance?

Well here's the thing. The majority of people in the world will not see anything more than a cursory glance, so how are they supposed to know whether his claim is true or false? Or doesn't it matter. I would have thought that due to the title of his presentation he would have brought or shown the actual evidence. I say this because that seems to be the criterea for acceptance of evolution.

If the problem is instead simply that it's not a topic that you consider important enough to devote any real time to, that's actually OK in and of itself. But then you have an obligation to either shut the fuck up about it, or simply admit that you're clueless.

Maybe I shouldn't have asked you the question, Rav. Apologies.

What does atheism have to do with evolution?

Put it this way, if you didn't know whether Coyne was atheist or theist, you knew with 2 minutes, he was very dismissive of religion, and even said on at least one occassion that ''there is no god''. And his presentation was ''Why Evolution is True''.

Bullshit. This is the single most understandable and justifiable reason to mock someone. There are few things less deserving of respect than the mentality of a person who demands to be taken seriously when spouting off on a topic they understand very little about.

Try and understand this, not everyone has access to, or even the ability, to pour over scientific evidence, and determine whether or not it is fact.
How can we determine that it is true without having to become a scientist with access and know how?
Has everyone who accepts evolution as true, had access to real evidence?
If not, why do they accept it? Common sense?

This is yet another example of your disingenuous bullshit. I've shown how you are wrong about this in a previous discussion by providing quotes from the key figures behind the ID movement in the act of revealing the underlying fundamentalist religious agenda. See here: http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/ID/HorsesMouth-BP007.pdf

I said.. ''As far as I know (as a theist) the evidence as explained by the ID proponents do not use ''theology'', and do not have a priori rejection of evolution.

''Underlying....'' is your interpretation of what those quotes mean. What you need to prove is whether or not their explanations of the evidence use theology and/or, have a prori rejection of evolution.

How would you qualify ''irreducible complexity'' as a theistic explanation?

jan.

 

[leopold]

The replies include some very basic science (I have mostly kept mine at the high-school level) plus quite a bit more.

yes, there is some good information in this thread, the majority has been provided by you, rpenner and grumpy.
the rest of us just kept poking at you to get them.

The thread was renamed and sent to the Denial area after a substantial number of anti-science and anti-evolution posts changed the initial direction.

i've made a number of inquiries about this and apparently the mod team is adamant about it.

Yes, it's true. But we don't equate denial with opposing science. It's for denying the laws of nature.

is asking questions about something you do not understand denial?
i DID NOT understand how evolution could proceed fast or slow . . . until grumpy mentioned molecular evolution.
then it just fell together.
in my opinion proteins, enzymes, and catalysts are going to explain this.

You can declare yourself a denialist by answering 'false' to any of the following:

•A species is a population of organisms that interbreeds and has fertile offspring.
•Living organisms have descended with modifications from species that lived before them
•Natural selection explains how this evolution has happened:
—More organisms are produced than can survive because of limited resources.
—Organisms struggle for the necessities of life; there is competition for resources.
—Individuals within a population vary in their traits; some of these traits are heritable -- passed on to offspring.
—Some variants are better adapted to survive and reproduce under local conditions than others.
—Better-adapted individuals (the "fit enough") are more likely to survive and reproduce, thereby passing on copies of their genes to the next generation.
—Species whose individuals are best adapted survive; others become extinct

If you say all of these are true, then you're doing fine. There really is no argument.

this isn't "all of evolution" is it?
there are certain other things that need to be said too aren't there?
the reason i say that is why does gould offer "alternate" hypothesis, and why isn't darwins finches mentioned for samples?

 

[Rav]

Okay, but the presentation was part of a presentation as to ''why evolution is true'', not ''an introduction to evolution''. I saw no reason to accept that evolution is true, other than to believe his claim.

What a talk like that is designed to do is raise eyebrows and point people in the direction of a much greater wealth of evidence. Jerry backed up everything he said with an array of resources that you can examine for yourself.

You're still expecting this to be easy, and in the sense you want it to be (which entails you doing an absolute minimum of work), it's really not.

Well here's the thing. The majority of people in the world will not see anything more than a cursory glance, so how are they supposed to know whether his claim is true or false?

The truth is that there a lot of people who accept evolution without understanding very much about it at all, simply because they consider naturalistic mechanisms more likely than supernatural ones. And that's a perfectly tenable position all by itself since it makes the fewest assumptions.

For the person who needs to overcome a significant bias instilled by creationist literature/propaganda, or who has trouble reconciling a preexisting world-view with evolutionary theory, or who simply wants to have an informed opinion rather than a default one, a lot more effort is required.

Put it this way, if you didn't know whether Coyne was atheist or theist, you knew with 2 minutes, he was very dismissive of religion, and even said on at least one occassion that ''there is no god''. And his presentation was ''Why Evolution is True''.

So what? He was speaking at an atheist conference and as such was under no obligation to be diplomatic. And he wasn't actually ridiculing belief in God in general anyway, just creationism. And creationism deserves ridicule, it's that fucking ridiculous. And it's not only atheists who ridicule it, it's other theists too!

So what I'm really getting at here is that accepting evolution does not necessarily hinge on whether or not you believe in god. It hinges on whether or not you are a biblical fundamentalist, or something similar.

I said.. ''As far as I know (as a theist) the evidence as explained by the ID proponents do not use ''theology'', and do not have a priori rejection of evolution.

''Underlying....'' is your interpretation of what those quotes mean. What you need to prove is whether or not their explanations of the evidence use theology and/or, have a prori rejection of evolution.

I'm sorry, but no-one is under any obligation to pretend that the key figures behind the ID movement aren't creationists. Creationism is the child of religious fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism entails, by definition (and by action, too) the a priori rejection of anything that is in conflict with it. Evolution is. Case closed.

Or do you need me to cut and paste the quotes that demonstrate this, from the pdf I linked to as well as other numerous sources, because you're too lazy to click a link and/or spend a few minutes with google?

How would you qualify ''irreducible complexity'' as a theistic explanation?

Since creationists have a history of presenting examples of this, only to see them summarily refuted as such, it's a rather impotent endeavour.

 

[Write4U]

Jan Ardena,
Try and understand this, not everyone has access to, or even the ability, to pour over scientific evidence, and determine whether or not it is fact.
How can we determine that it is true without having to become a scientist with access and know how?
Has everyone who accepts evolution as true, had access to real evidence?
If not, why do they accept it? Common sense?

How about if the Vatican accepts the fact of evolution. Seems to me that should satisfy all parties.

Pope John Paul II, on the 23rd of October, 1996, while speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences plenary session at the Vatican, declared the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin to be fact, tacitly acknowledging that man evolved from the apes, and reducing the biblical account of Genesis to that of mere fable!

and

What the Pope has done, as you will see, is elevate Darwinian evolutionary theory to that of undeniable scientific fact, or truth. He then draws the conclusion that since evolution is indeed the truth, the Catholic Church's interpretation of the biblical account of Genesis cannot contradict this now proven and accepted fact of evolution, and so church teachings must consequently be re-evaluated and amended. The Catholic church has faced this sort of predicament before.

http://www.biblelight.net/darwin.htm

Personally I see this as a long needed revision of the biblical account of Genesis. Unfortunately religious people also seem to be ignorant of what goes on in the Church itself. Creationism has been reduced to the very instant before the Big Bang. From then on evolution of the entire universe took place, demonstrably.

As has been said before, there is no easy way out. If you want to discuss a subject, you have to familiarize yourself with that subject, at least in rudimentary form and be willing to read links provided by people who have studied this stuff.

One last thought,
I am sure you are familiar with the (scientific) Commandment that the burden of proof lies on the person making a claim. If Darwin himself was not fully able to explain what he saw, many others have since.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/what-darwin-didnt-know/

So, now the assertion of a Creator God is an extraordinary (old) claim, and the burden of proof lies with the claimant, I'm afraid.