Re: Darwin's doubts #4

[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.

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

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.

We have fossil evidence showing family trees.  But even more
important, DNA evidence is now available.  It supports what
we already knew.

You probably reject all this because it contradicts Genesis.
We don't have a lot of scientific data supporting creation.


> >> "...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.

Soft body fossils?  No, because they hadn't been found in
1870 or hadn't been recognized as such.  Fossils of soft
bodied animals (without shell or bones) have only recently
been discovered.


>  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

Humans *are* apes.


> 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.

The fossil evidence shows many transitional species, for
example, homo neanderthalis.

> 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]
>