Re: Darwin's doubts #4

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.

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

>
>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. 

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


>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
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)

>
>You probably reject all this because it contradicts Genesis.

And it contradicts common sense. Such as creating the human brain.

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

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". 

>
>
>> >> "...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.

Neanderthalis were like modern humans today. (IE)

>
>> 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.   
>> 
Can humans really 
end all wars?
Go to: jw.org (8/12/2026)
[email protected]

>>