Another decent argument against Evolution to add to your arsenal:

Why is there no indication of ANY evolution of Man during the historical period, which goes back several thousand years?

How long do they say that modern Man, homo sapiens, has existed?  The historical record has *got* to be a decent % of that. There should be some indications, one way or the other, that we are either evolving or devolving.

Now I posit that all the evidence points to man devolving, rather than evolving. And don't point to your damn smartphone! That isn't part of you. Babies coming out of the womb today don't start with the basics of electronics in their brains, and then build from there as they get older. Most "Homo Modernus Smartphonus" circa 2021 couldn't even build a single smartphone if they had 20 "lifeline" calls (think: gameshow) and a budget of 100 million dollars.

Heck, the typical young person circa 2021 can't even produce his own food, much less work any scientific wonders.

As further evidence for my assertion, just look at ancient languages being more complex than recent ones. And people relied on their memories rather than Google. No, we are devolving if anything, not evolving onward and upward, into a new life form.

Just read a book or newspaper from 1880, and then one from 2020, if you don't believe me.

I've heard apocryphal tales of people being born without pinky toes --- the evolutionists might say that this is a remnant that is no longer needed. 

Pray tell, how does that work?

Even if one were to admit natural selection (which may work on a small, micro-scale, e.g., birds with longer beaks to retrieve food, or reptiles being better able to survive if they're invisible to predators), there would have to be some advantage to not having pinky toes, that people without pinky toes are more attractive mates, that they have better survival skills, and so on.  That is nonsense.

If there is any evolution at all among humans, it would (or so it seems to me anyway) depend more on the relative attractiveness of males and fertile females to each other, and for the "highest-quality" people to seek out and find one another, so that succeeding generations are stronger, more attractive, and so on. 

You can see this happening to some extent with both taboos against interracial marriage, and greater accessibility of the races to one another.  Some white women simply cannot respond favorably to any man unless he is black --- my theory on this, is that it is not only perceived sɛҳuąƖ prowess (and other things), but a general perception that black men are more "purely masculine", stronger, better able to protect their women, and possess massive reserves of "self-confidence", whether they have a reason to be "self-confident" or not.  (And why wouldn't they be self-confident?  Everything in our society tells them that they hung the moon!)  Likewise, many black men prefer white women because of a sense of "we can now finally have what was kept away from us", they are not as hard to please or to get along with as black women are (who can be pretty brassy, to hear them tell it, they've had to be), and black men tend to be more forgiving of size.  (For some reason, they gravitate towards fat redheads.  Interesting preference.)

There is a similar phenomenon with white men and Asian women.  As with black men/white women, it's a symbiotic thing.  Asian women like white men because they are perceived as being "more masculine", the men treat them better, and appreciate them more.  Many white men prefer Asian women --- indeed, as with the black men/white women thing, some white men simply cannot entertain the thought of having anyone but an Asian woman --- because they are more petite, more delicate, more feminine, and not as hard to get along with, as white women are.  As a white man, I can definitely see this, though my understanding is that Asian women (Chinese women, anyway) like to control the family finances  --- no woman would ever "give me an allowance", I'd have stayed single for life first! --- and their extended families are extremely important to them.  (I acknowledge that these are generalizations, and exceptions can and do exist.  Yet exceptions always just prove the rule, otherwise they wouldn't be exceptions.)

I hope I haven't departed too far from the thread, but I'm just trying to illustrate how there can be variations in the human "species" over time, but that they owe more to psychological, sɛҳuąƖ, and interpersonal realities, than to raw physical skills needed for survival and advantage in the material world.

Although Francis Parker Yockey was not a Catholic, I find the section on Darwinism in his book Imperium to be one of the best takedowns of this nonsense that I've read. Here are some excerpts that I would like to share: 



"This is only the foreground, for actually the road from Darwin back to Calvin is quite clear: Calvinism is a religious interpretation of the "survival of the fittest" idea, and it calls the fit the "elected." Darwinism makes this election-process mechanical-profane instead of theological-religious: selection by Nature instead of election by God. It remains purely English in the process, for the national religion of England was an adaptation of Calvinism." (pg. 44)




"In the first place, there is no "Struggle for existence" in nature; this old Malthusian idea merely projected Capitalism on to the animal world. Such struggles for existence as do occur are the exception; the rule in Nature is abundance. There are plenty of plants for the herbivores to eat, and there are plenty of herbivores for the carnivores to eat. Between the latter there can hardly be said to be "struggle," since only the carnivore is spiritually equipped for war. A lion making a meal of a zebra portrays no "struggle" between two species, unless one is determined so to regard it. Even so, he must concede that it is not physically, mechanically, necessary for the carnivores to kill other animals. They could as well eat plants — it is the demand of their animal souls however to live in this fashion, and thus, even if one were to call their lives struggles, it would not be imposed by "Nature" but by the soul. It becomes thus, not a "struggle for existence," but a spiritual necessity of being one's self." (pgs. 45-46)



"As a factual picture, this is easier to refute than it is to prove, and factual biological thinkers, both Mechanists and Vitalists, like Louis Agassiz, Du Bois-Reymond, Reinke, and Driesch rejected it from its appearance. The easiest refutation is the palaeontological. Fossil deposits — found in various parts of the earth — must represent the possibilities generally. Yet they disclose only stable specie-forms, and disclose no transitional types, which show a species "evolving" into something else. And then, in a new fossil hoard, a new species appears, in its definitive form, which remains stable. The species that we know today, and for past centuries, are all stable, and no case has ever been observed of a species "adapting" itself to change its anatomy or physiology, which "adaptation" then resulted in more "fitness" for the "struggle for existence," and was passed on by heredity, with the result of a new species.

Darwinians cannot get over these facts by bringing in great spaces of time, for palaeontology has never discovered any intermediate types, but only distinct species. Nor are the fossil animals which have died out any simpler than present-day forms, although the course of evolution was supposed to be from simple to complex Life-forms. This was crude anthropomorphism — man is complex, other animals are simple, they must be tending toward him, since he is "higher" biologically.

Calling Culture-man a "higher" animal still treats him as an animal. Culture-man is a different world spiritually from all animals, and is not to be understood by referring him to any artificial materialistic scheme." (pg. 46)



"The Darwinian analogy between artificial selection and natural selection is also in opposition to the facts. The products of artificial selection such as barnyard fowls, racing dogs, race horses, ornamental cats, and song-canaries, would certainly be at a disadvantage against natural varieties. Thus artificial selection has only been able to produce less fit life-forms.

Nor is Darwinian sɛҳuąƖ selection in accordance with facts. The female does not by any means always choose the finest and strongest individual for a mate, in the human species, or in any other." 
(pgs. 46-47)




"The utilitarian aspect of the picture is also quite subjective — i.e., English, capitalistic, parliamentarian — for the utility of an organ is relative to the use sought to be made of it. A species without hands has no need of hands. A hand that slowly evolved would be a positive disadvantage over the "millions of years" necessary to perfect the hand. Furthermore, how did this process start! For an organ to be utile, it must be ready; while it is being prepared, it is inutile. But if it is inutile, it is not Darwinian, for Darwinism says evolution is utilitarian." (pg. 47)

Interestingly, two Popes with Jєωιѕн family lines, both struggling with contradictions to the Catholic Faith.

Just for the heck of it, what exactly was Pius XII's Jєωιѕн ancestry?  I don't challenge it, I've just never heard that before.  TBH, his nose is characteristically Jєωιѕн (convex nasal bridge), though both my grandfather and my uncle had the same type of nose, and they were anything but Jєωιѕн (English and Scots-Irish).

I realize that John Paul II's mother's maiden name was Kaczorowa (the Polonized feminine form of the surname Katz, FWIW I have known Christians whose last name was Katz, so it may be aboriginally Jєωιѕн or it may not be), but I have never heard that about Pius XII.

And then there is the (in my opinion) fairly well-docuмented narrative that St Pius X's family was Polish --- "Sarto" is an Italian calque of the Polish surname "Krawiec", both of which translate to "tailor" (Taylor).

Let me try to answer.

I don't think anyone denies that the Pacelli and Montinni families came from merchant class Jєωιѕн lines.

If you can find such a denial, please post it.



No one seems to question is that both "merchant" families came to Rome and converted to Catholicism.  
Okay, they are Catholics now and not Jҽωs anymore.  Is that so?

Try to find something on both Pacelli's and Montini's seminary life.  They both home schooled.

The converso Jєω is always "conflicted" and has to be watched to make sure he does not regress back to judaism.

I submit that Pope Pius XII had a conflicted papacy.  His papacy opened the door for the modernists.  
BTW, this is the judaic MO for initial infiltration into any organization

Pope Paul VI was Catholic and clearly developed into a nut-job, homo Jєω who wrecked our Church's liturgy among many other things.

For John Paul II, I firmly believe his mother was Jєωιѕн, meaning, according to Jєωιѕн interpretation, that he too was considered a Jєω.


I suppose there are hair locks extant of all three Popes that could be tested to technically prove the extent of their Jєωιѕнness.

OK, let me make sure I understand, but first of all, let me also make it clear, that I am not arguing the matter one way or the other.  Neither am I, for the sake of this discussion, going to debate whether having a Pope from a converted, ancestrally Jєωιѕн family, is a good thing, a bad thing, or a neutral thing.  St Peter was a Jєω.  Not sure about Pope Linus.  Not sure when the line of originally-Jєωιѕн popes "petered out" (groannnnn....... ).

Your logic is interesting, and TBH, I would have to dig out my college logic textbook, to see how much merit it has.  OK, here goes.  Nobody denies the facts you provide.  I have not yet found such a denial.  But let's say I do.  Or let's say I don't.  The latter is no proof of truth --- just proof that nobody denies these claims.

Seems to me that the hairlock testing would be the best way to go.

I don't think anyone denies that the Pacelli and Montinni families came from merchant class Jєωιѕн lines.

 I did not know that Pope Pius XII was descended from Jєωs. I have considered it as a possibility, but never talked about it because I thought everyone would think I was crazy and hate on me. But now you bring it up.

Evolution continues:

‘The leader of the Bolshevik ʀɛʋօʟutιօn, Vladimir Lenin had been born into a Christian home but lost his faith as a teenager and embraced evolutionary materialism.  On his desk sat a sculpture of a chimpanzee sitting on a pile of books, including Darwin’s Origin of Species, contemplating a human skull.  Lenin coolly sat in the presence of that sculpture, overseeing the murders of millions of innocent people, all in the name of evolutionary progress.  Lenin’s successor as communist dictator of the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin, also lost his faith in God as a seminarian after reading Darwin’s evolution and Lyell’s uniformitarianism.  He oversaw the murder of more than twenty million people, all in the name of evolutionary progress.  When ƈσmmυɳιsm then spread to ƈhıną, Mao Tse Tung’s forces held compulsory seminars in every town they captured, not in the teachings of Marx, Lenin, or Mao, but in evolutionism, because, in the words of Passionist missionary bishop Cuthbert O’Gara, evolutionary theory could be used to destroy people’s faith in God, in the soul, and in the after-life, and ƈσmmυɳιsm could then take root in the minds of the people. The evolutionary hypothesis provided a rationale for communist movements all over the world.  It also provided a pseudo-scientific rationale for the eugenics movement in the United States, Germany and elsewhere. Evolutionary theory was used to justify genocide in the German colony of Namibia in the early twentieth century and to justify the ideology of the nαzι party which took power in Germany in 1933… According to Adolf Hitler, the purpose of the nαzι Party was to advance evolution.’ --- Kolbe Center report 17/7/2017.

In the numerous papal speeches to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, no pope ever officially said a bad word against evolution theories. Indeed quite the opposite. In 1950 Pope Pius XII wrote in his encyclical Humani Generis the following:

‘36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immєdιαtely created by God…..’--- H. G.

On October 22, 1996, Pope John Paul II, reflecting on Pius XII’s ‘observation’ on evolution in Humani Generis said:

‘Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.'

Note there is never as mention of Eve in their evolution beliefs. Where does Eve fit in with evolution of Adam's body from pre-existing matter?

JP2 actually at one point called it "more than a theory".  

This was one of the many harmful things done by Pius XII ... adding to his condoning of NFP (leading to this Catholic Birth Control phenomenon), his experimentations with the Liturgy, and his early Ecuмenical gatherings.  And, oh yes, let us not forget that he appointed, during his lengthy reign, nearly every bishop that would eventually bring us the glories of Vatican II.  Heck, even Roncalli threw Bugnini out of the Vatican.