Re: Darwin's doubts #4

On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 03:26:10 -0700, Samuel Spade <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[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.

That is microevolution. And was programmed into them by their Creator.

But if humans in a lab took one species (kind) and turned it into a
different species (kind),  then I would not say it contradicts the
Bible. Because it takes high intelligence to make it happen. 

>> 
>> 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.

But they are still dog-like. Also, no one has witnessed a species
turning into a completely new species. Like dog to rabbit, etc.

>
>
>> >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.

"Actually that evidence" helps to support "creation" over
macroevolution. 

Look at chimpanzees and humans. The chimpanzees and humans almost
share the same DNA. Yet they are two different "kinds". There is that
wall again showing that they cannot naturally breed together,
regardless how close their DNA is.


>
>Did you watch God create "kinds" and stars and people during
>creation time?  What, no one witnessed it? 

Actually Jesus and the angels did from Heaven with God.
But true, no human ever witnessed the creation account with "Kinds"
and stars, etc. And just because something is written down doesn't
make it automatically true.

> 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 lot's of people believe that God is a torturer with fire.Yet the
Bible says He is a God of love. (1 Joh 4:8) It takes a maniac to do
such things. 

>
>
>>  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.

Repetition of God's word is to walk on a righteous path.

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

Not that I am aware of. So what is your point?

>
>
>> >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).

The evidence is all around you. If we were made of nuts and bolts,
you could see that someone intelligent made us. There would be no
question about it.

But we are made of even better stuff. We are water-proof, self healing
for most cuts and bruises, a marvelous brain for constructing things,
etc, etc.

>
>
>> 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.

Why didn't Darwin find transitional species? Did they just suddenly
appear in our day only? 

>
>
>> >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.

Then you are saying that science never shows proof of things?
Looks like we live on two different planets.

>
>> 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. 

From AI.

> 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?

Yes, that if they evolved, they should be able to interbreed since
they are so close genetically. 

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

But their similar genetics should have them breeding together.
>
>> >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.

Appeals to authority CAN BE the data. 


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

It is my error that should read AI. And you know what AI is.

>
>> 
>> 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 don't have to have 6 PhD's to comment on evolution.

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

Yes, the proof is all around us. Something brainless built it all?
Millions of species? And not so much as a microbe on other planets or
moons. Why did your macroevolution go nuts here on earth, but zilch
elsewhere?

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

Not based on the evidence. If one does research on the Bible and
always find it true, then it is logical that things that it comments
on where no humans were around, be true also.

Or to say it another way, if A is true and B is true, A + B is also
true.

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

There, I did it again. (IE) Should be AI.

>
>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.

With all those homo's around, why couldn't Darwin have found many
transitional species?


>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>

Thank you for the compliment. But those apostles in the Bible were
"unlettered and ordinary". (Acts 4:13) The Bible was not written in
scientific jargon. So no special education is needed to understand it,
other than to read and write.

Earthquakes:Jesus said
some things about them.
Go to: jw.org (8/21/2026)
[email protected]