Re: Darwin's doubts #4

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Aug 2026 19:09:48 -0700, Samuel Spade <[email protected]> wrote:
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> On Thu, 06 Aug 2026 22:06:10 -0700, Samuel Spade <[email protected]> wrote:> 
> >> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Darwin's doubts #4
> >> >> 
> >> >> Fully complete species suddenly appear in lowest strata.
> >> >
> >> >That's not exactly what he said.
> >> >
> >> >What do you mean by "complete species"?
> >> 
> >> Hello,
> >> 
> >> Dogs show up as full dogs, cat's as full cats. Not half dogs or half
> >> cats, which is how it should be if macroevolution was real. 
> >
> >Dogs are evolved/bred from grey wolves, starting around
> >20,000 to 25,000 years ago.  Most of the modern breeds
> >appeared in the last couple centuries.
> 
> But as they so-called 'evolved', they still remained dog-like. They
> didn't turn into horses or anything else. They stayed within their
> "kind", which is what the Bible says.

Dogs have been selectively evolved into a cornucopia of
diverse breeds with very different morphologies, all in a
very short time.  Give em more time and you'll see new
species, families and classes.  Probably not new phyla.


> >A common ancestor of dogs and cats is the miacids, such as
> >the cute little critter called Dormaalocyon latouri that
> >lived 55 million years ago.  (Note: a transitional species.)
> ><https://www.livescience.com/42342-tiny-carnivore-ancestor-discovered.html
> 
> And of course humans watched them 'evolved' into things like bears and
> dogs and cats. What, no one  witnessed it? Then how can you be sure it
> is the ancestor of them? Since no humans were around then, they are
> just having a theory of that.

The fossil and DNA evidence is beyond reasonable doubt.

Did you watch God create "kinds" and stars and people during
creation time?  What, no one witnessed it?  How can you be
sure?  So it's just a hypothesis.  It's not testable or
falsifiable, so it's not even a hypotheses.  It's just
something you accept on faith, as religion not science, which
is fine as long as you accept it for what it is.

Lots of biologists, geologists, and medical people are
christians and accept evolution.  Doesn't have to be a
contradiction.


>  And if they REALLY came from miacids,
> dogs and cats and weasels and bears all should be able interbreed with
> each other.

I don't know where you get this idea from.  I've explained it
to you before but you seem to think repetition is persuasion.

Do you expect that a Buick and a 737 should have
interchangeable parts?


> >The lineage splits 42 million years ago into canines and
> >felines, leading to the many species we have today.  There
> >are many transitional species along the way.
> 
> Since humans were not around then, they use their logic thinking that
> they figured it out. 

Correct.  The evidence is pretty clear.  The best argument
creationists can make is that God intervened in evolution
from time to time.  As a scientific hypothesis it runs up
against non-falsifyability, and the problem of having no
empirical evidence for God (pick your particular god).


> Also, Darwin could not find transitional species, and that bothered
> his him about his  theory.

We have a lot of things today that Darwin didn't have.
Transition species is one of them.


> >We have fossil evidence showing family trees.  But even more
> >important, DNA evidence is now available.  It supports what
> >we already knew.
> 
> You can't guarantee that DNA proves your point. IE says that

There's no such thing as a guarantee or "proof" in science.
All science is provisional.  Any belief that makes guarantees
or offers "proof" is not science.

> chimpanzees and humans have 98.8% of DNA matched. Well that should do
> it, right? 
> 
> But there is a monkey wrench tossed in. (no joke in tended) THEY CAN'T
> INTERBREED! Even though the DNA is mathematically very close, Jehovah
> set up two different Kinds" Thus evolution didn't work here. (except
> there was microevolution)

I don't know where you get your number.  As I pointed out,
and which seems to have whooshed you, chimps have 24 pairs of
chromasomes.  Humans have 23.  Does that mean something to
you?

Their respective genes are not necessarily in the same place
in the genome either.

> >You probably reject all this because it contradicts Genesis.
> 
> And it contradicts common sense. Such as creating the human brain.

Common sense tells you that the earth is flat.

Give us data, not appeals to authority.

> IE says, "The human brain is widely considered the most complex
> structure in the known universe."

Who is IE?

> 
> And evolution has no brain. When you have a thing without a brain
> producing very complex biologies, let me know.
> 
> >We don't have a lot of scientific data supporting creation.
> 
> Life always comes from life. And all biologicals stay as biological
> "kinds". 

This is just speculation.  You don't have data or a deductive
progression, it's just "this sounds right to me so it must be
so".

You have never observed life from non-life, therefore you
simply assume it cannot have ever happened.

Then, you have never observed biblical creation either.
Therefore it's impossible, right?

(...)

> >The fossil evidence shows many transitional species, for
> >example, homo neanderthalis.
> 
> Neanderthalis were like modern humans today. (IE)

Neanderthals were a separate species.  They were
transitional, having interbred with humans.  There's also
Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and at least 8 other homo
species.  Some were transitional, some were dead-ends.

James, you are to be commended for engaging.  If you want to
debate creationism v. evolution on the net, you should
refresh yourself on high school biology.  Like:

<https://www.amazon.com/dp/1328505944>
or
<https://www.amazon.com/dp/0470117737>