Re: Darwin's doubts #4

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. 

>
>> 
>> "...There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more
>> serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several
>> of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the
>> lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must
>> remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument
>> against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.” (The Origin of
>> Species, by Charles Darwin)
>
>In the lowest non-igneous rocks that Darwin knew about, there
>were already diverse ancient species.  At some point in the
>column, the fossil record stops because the earlier species
>were soft-bodied, or microbes, all of which very rarely leave
>any fossils.  Some soft-body fossils have been recently
>discovered, mostly in China, but they are very rare.
>
>The oldest rocks are igneous, which won't have fossils
>anyway.

Darwin was no dunce. He would have known of soft fossils. His candice
objection to his theory, does make him somewhat truthful. When he is
resurrected, he will finally know the truth. And his theory will turn
to dust.

So far he has recognized that the formation of a complete eye seems
absurd.

Also, he was not finding transitional special that should be in the
fossil record. 

He acknowledge that in the strata, species show up fully formed. By
his theory, that shouldn't be. There should be a gradual formation
over time. 

Many of today's evolutionists make it APPEAR that transitional species
occurred. For example, ape to human. Since they both look similar, one
evolved from the other, right? If that was true then they would be
close on the evolutionary scale, and be able to mate. But they can't.

Thus, God made the ape as one "kind" and humans as another "kind".

Since today's technology is much greater today than in the past, it
would not surprise me if scientists genetically modified the
reproduction ability of both species. And successfully mated them.

So would that prove the Bible wrong? No way. All it would show is that
it took high intellectual technology to make it happen. Evolution has
the IQ of zero. Nature has not, and never will, make such things
happen.   

Many ways to have a
great, super family. 
Go to: jw.org (8/7 /2026)
[email protected]