From Newsgroup: alt.bible.prophecy

Darwin's doubts #4

Fully complete species suddenly appear in lowest strata.

"...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. .a.a. The case at present must
remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument
against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.o (The Origin of
Species, by Charles Darwin)

The earth is warming up.
What the Bible says.
Go to: jw.org (8/6/2026)
zebrabible@proton.me



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible.prophecy

zebrabible@proton.me 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"?

"...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. .a.a. The case at present must
remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument
against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.o (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.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible.prophecy

On Thu, 06 Aug 2026 22:06:10 -0700, Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid>
wrote:

zebrabible@proton.me 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. .a.a. The case at present must
remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument
against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.o (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)
zebrabible@proton.me


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible.prophecy

zebrabible@proton.me wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2026 22:06:10 -0700, Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> wrote:> >zebrabible@proton.me 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. .a.a. The case at present must
remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument
against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.o (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)
zebrabible@proton.me

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible.prophecy

On Sat, 08 Aug 2026 19:09:48 -0700, Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid>
wrote:

zebrabible@proton.me wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2026 22:06:10 -0700, Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> wrote:>

zebrabible@proton.me 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. .a.a. The case at present must
remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument
against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.o (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)
zebrabible@proton.me

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible.prophecy

zebrabible@proton.me wrote:

On Sat, 08 Aug 2026 19:09:48 -0700, Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> wrote: >zebrabible@proton.me wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2026 22:06:10 -0700, Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> wrote:>

zebrabible@proton.me 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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. 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?

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

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.

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

Who is IE?

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

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

(...)

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

Neanderthalis were like modern humans today. (IE)

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.

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>
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2