[Aquinasfan]

Certainly no one has found anything in the extremely short time since then.

The problems with evolutionary theory are pretty simple. If evolution happened gradually, why does the fossil record show uniform stasis within species?

If evolution happened in great leaps, by what mechanism could this have happened?

---

Another interesting problem with strict, materialistic evolution is the fact that it contradicts the first principle of medicine, the restoration of health to the body. How can health, or the proper operation of the body, be defined in an evolving life form? Logically, no species is fixed, but instead is in a state of perpetual evolution.

Who's to say if a disease isn't culling the herd? In fact, how could "disease" be defined under an evolutionary rubric? Are mutations good or bad? Would it even be possible to define a good or bad mutation?

[Dimensio]

If evolution happened gradually, why does the fossil record show uniform stasis within species?

It does? Perhaps you could elaborate on this?

Some species may well remain constant. That would happen if they remain in an environment to which their current physiology is optimally suited. If that happens, then deviations from that would be less likely to survive, and thus the species would remain the same through the generations.

Another interesting problem with strict, materialistic evolution is the fact that it contradicts the first principle of medicine, the restoration of health to the body. How can health, or the proper operation of the body, be defined in an evolving life form? Logically, no species is fixed, but instead is in a state of perpetual evolution.

This makes absolutely no sense and seems built not only upon a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution but also a misunderstanding of "species" and a semantic argument regarding disease.

When you have a cold, it's because a virus is interfering with the efficiency of your body. When you do things to facilitate recovery from a cold, you're working to aid your body in overcoming the effects of the virus. There's nothing about it that contradicts evolution.

Who's to say if a disease isn't culling the herd?

A disease may well "cull the herd", creating an environment where only those able to survive the disease are able to pass their genes on to the next generation, resulting in new populations that are resistant to the disease.

Do you have an actual point here?

In fact, how could "disease" be defined under an evolutionary rubric?

Multiple ways. Diseases caused by viruses or bacteria could be examined through the bacteria/viruses themselves. Disease can also be looked at as an environmental factor amongst the affected population.

Are mutations good or bad?

Science does not deal in "good or bad".

Would it even be possible to define a good or bad mutation?

No, because science does not deal in "good or bad".