Re: Darwin's doubts #4

[email protected] wrote:
> 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.

Dog evolution is evolution.  Artificial selection, not
natural, and altho dogs & wolves are considered different
species, they can still interbreed.


> 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. 
> 
> >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.

It's only 25,000 years since they were wolves.  Yet look how
different dogs appear from each other, and from wolves.

Dog to rabbit?  Unlikely in less than tens of millions of
years, they are different orders.  But they do have a common
ancestor.


> >> >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. 

It doesn't.  The changes in genome are consistent.  We don't
ever see anything completely different.  There are never new
species that are completely new from the ground up.


> >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.

That's just mythology passed for generations by spoken word.
There's no record from then.  It was probably not written
down until after the babylonian exile.


> >>  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.

Then you must be righteouser than a broken record.

> >Do you expect that a Buick and a 737 should have
> >interchangeable parts?
> 
> Not that I am aware of. So what is your point?

Why do you expect that all animals have all their various
genes in the same place on the same chromasomes?  Do you know
what it means to evolve?  It means the DNA undergoes changes
which cause the organism to be different, for better or
worse.  Do you expect the Buick engine to fit in a 737 and
still work?


> >> >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.

Reductio ad absurdum.  Nuts and bolts don't reproduce.  Do
you understand why that's critical?


> 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.

Not bad for undirected intelligence, no?


> >> 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? 

1.  In 1850 there weren't a lot of fossils been collected,
and even fewer could be identified.

2.  Transitional species are all around.  Darwin just didn't
know what to look for.  Pterodactyl, anyone?

3.  Darwin expected changes to be slow and gradual, not the
"punctuated equilibrium" that we see.

4.  We can see the progression in existing life forms, from
rodent to raccoon to lemur to monkeys, or something like
that.


> >> >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.

Bingo!

Nothing can be proven.

If you disagree, prove something.  Anything.

Nothing can be proven to absolute certitude.  Sometimes
things can be disproven.  Sometimes an observation seems to
always hold true, yet it can't be proven.  So we use it as
knowledge, provisionally, until it's disproven.  That's
called an axiom.  We can accept and work with axioms "beyond
reasonable doubt", with the caveats.

Can you prove 2+2=4?  Try it.  Show your work.  That's why
it's an axiom.

Science is a process, specifically this algorithm:
1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Experimentation
4. Conclusion.
5. GOTO 1

It's that simple.  And it works like a windshield wiper on a
duck's ass.

Science is about hypothesis and theory, trying something new,
disproving it, trying something else, and going with the
best-fit theory until something better comes along.

> >> 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 see a problem there.  I mean, if you're into coupling
with monkeys or livestock, there's no chance of embarrassing
unwanted pregnancies, because what would the other monkeys
think?

> >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. 

Hello?  Chimp: 24 pairs of chromasomes. Human: only 23.  Do
you see any issues there?

Remember any chromasomes from high school biology?  Anything
about them being in pairs?  DNA had already been discovered
when you went to high school, right?

> >Their respective genes are not necessarily in the same place
> >in the genome either.
> 
> But their similar genetics should have them breeding together.

Again: Genes not in the same place.  Eyeball gene on one
chromasome, toe gene in same place on other chromasome?
Doesn't sound like a recipe for failure?

> >> >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. 

The bible isn't data.  I'm pretty sure you agree.

> >> And evolution has no brain. When you have a thing without a brain
> >> producing very complex biologies, let me know.

Ok.  It's happening now.

AI has no brain, but it has algorithms.  Does it have
intelligence?  Like science, AI adapts with what work.
Whether it's intelligent or not is a matter of semantics.

Like AI, evolution is recursive.  Its algorithm is
ridiculously simple.

If it walks like intelligence and quacks like intelligence,
it's smart enough to make life.


> >> >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 don't need PhDs, but if you want to be taken seriously,
you have to at least make sense.  That means having a
structured systematic thesis for why life can't come from
non-life.  Good luck with that, because you're probably going
to create life before you prove you can't.

Until someone does that, it's all "just-so" speculation on
faith, and faith is religion not science.


> 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?

We've been here before.  You don't know whether there's life
on other bodies or not, and there probably is.


> >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.

The bible is already found to not always be true.


> >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?

Darwin didn't spend much time in Olduvai Gorge, or Java or
central asia.  Darwin wan't a fossil hunter.

> >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.