The change of one iguana into another form of iguana is a change within the genetic stock of a single
species. To say it has developed into a new species is to say the similarity is no longer existent, but a land iguana and a sea iguana are both recognizable as cousins to the ringed tailed variation in South America where Charles Darwin became so calloused towards humanity, decrying the brutality of nature, earthquakes, and humans in one profound snap of his fragile sensibilities. Yet, he never decried his own elitist aristocratic social niche who's demand for sugar created the brutality of the particular form of slavery he witnessed. Nor would he bring himself to examine the fallacy of a cathedrals collapse as a recourse of a sinful church he was once interested in joining. In fact, the ravings of Darwinian logic are well thought out insanities cataloging the divorcement
of a fallen soul from a false religion that never had the slightest thing to do
with Christianity. He might have found a better focus in protestantism, but the yolk of Mother Church had indoctrinated the globe so long at the time he was active in life, that he could see no other way to substantiate going against the bigotry of Catholicism and the offshoot branches of other falsely upheld doctrines of the worldly church, without eradicating it entirely in his own being. His mind, being the byproduct of the Roman usurpation of a slave casts pure form of faith, and the subsequent twisting of that faith into another ritualistic and idolatrous religion of the world.
I don't blame him for his hatred of the falseness of the Papacy or the Church of England. I am however disappointed that he lost his own faith in the living God.
So lets make the point.
A fruit fly becoming a new form of fly is not evolutionary proof. A single fly ancestor produced all flies and all genetic variations of said fly were embedded in a seamless genetic code written for the first created fly. A dove, pigeon, cat, dog, horse bred to mutate by man is not natural selection. Its breeding. A creative practice of human dominion over the things of the Earth we share. A dog was created a canine of some sort and in that sort every dog type on Earth was present, but every form of canine is always instantaneously recognizable as a dog. Same with the cat, the dove/pigeon, and the horse. Horses never evolved from a rodent-like ancestor with five toes. Some horses were created with three toes, but they were horses and were never in common with a dog or a cat on a genetic level. But the horse we know and love is a variant of original design roughly unchanged for the life of the planet.
is not a form of divergent insect related to beetles and ants. Its quite noticeably a form of roach, and the roach at creation held many bugs of the same basic makeup within its genetic code. So lets tell the truth
and say that the origin of
all creatures lies in the codex of its uniformed and sophisticated (beyond production by natural means) genetic map. The fingerprint of intelligent design is so vast in his god "Nature" that realities very existence is a virtual impossibility mathematically, unless directed by a force obeying the very specific
laws that govern the universe and the finite beyond. The ant is a form of wasp, but a wasp will never be in common with a dung beetle.
One worm form at creation is enough to bring forth all the "species" of worm forms that would ever be. Because of the perfect nature of the first in creation, changing within its own genetic diversity. Clearly, some organisms are better able to contain mutative propensity because of the simplistic nature of the root organism. In terms of microbiology, the drive and ease of transition from one form to another is much more discouraged by the creator. The reason is the symbiosis between the colony of micro organisms created to function perfectly in high order life. Hence, a pig ancestor can not, and never could become a whale or an elephant. But a pig can become any variety of pigs, a whale any variant of whale, and an elephant any type of elephant. This is change allowed by the basic ordered design pointing to the inability of a bird arising from a reptilian origin. Or an aquatic creature adopting a land based form. But after its kind a fish from a minnow to a blue fin tuna can arise within one genetic stock, but never a shark from that branch. Natural selection only applies
to what has died out over the course
of the chaos unleashed by humanity.
There is no survival of the fittest in man's dominion. Man often hunts the prime example of any given creature before the sickly or the weak. Disease can take the strongest on a whim, a flooding river, the very earthquakes that made Darwin question God can cut down the chief examples of life on Earth. To correct his misgivings, let me contest one of his more assumptive daring's.
Darwin's hateful question: "If a man is struck by lightning, are we meant to believe God allowed or directed it in some way? Or if a sparrow snatches up a gnat, are we to assume God played a roll in it? I can see no evidence nor can I conceive this as being the case."
Answer: Man is held to the sins of the first man, and any man besides the Messiah has sin, the wages of which is death. If God allows a man/woman/child to fall in any way, not simply lightning, it is because (innocent or not) they had a father who sinned. And God provides for the sparrow as he does for the gnat. He most certainly directed the bugs path into the beak of that bird. Just as he led Christ in the wild
to the locusts that would sustain him. God, in his infinite understanding allowing one death to nourish a life. But only because of the chaos of the world Adam allowed to become. The sin of man is the catalyst of all evil, geology, weather, and cosmic destruction beyond Earth, whereas, in the beginning it was all perfect enough to merit the approval of God, who called all of it "good". The dominion offered to man, was given to Satan with the sin of mankind in the person of Adam and Eve
. Thus, in this world, all goodness, all kindness, and all miracles aiding or restoring humanity in some way are attributable to God. All death, wickedness, and suffering, is given over to the devil as his "dominion". God, allowed free will in man. Man chose to sin. Satan inherited Earth, and so began the process of its destruction. The chaos we see as natural and having always been a part of reality. But in the world before sin, existence was in order. So, please, stop laying allowances of evil on the one being in reality who has attempted to intervene on man's behalf since the dawn of time. God, is not to blame for Adam's sin, and in spite of it, he forgives it. Neither is he silent. To the contrary, he asks us all to come home, so he can be done with Lucifer altogether. But man remains rebellious and ungrateful. As in the case of, Charles Darwin, for example, having nothing to say about God but derogatory and combative "accusations
". The true
"original sin". As Lucifer "accused
" God of lying to Eve. "Ye shall not surely die...
for God knoweth on the day ye eatest thereof ye shall become like him, and be as gods..." How true, for now modern man sets himself over all creation and claims he is
The conclusion (with as much observance of the scriptures as the 7 years spent by Darwin developing his insanity and subsequent 20 spent refining
his arguments for other jaded socialites of the era) is this. The origin of
kinds is not the origin of
species, but all origins began with God. Hence, various kinds are species, but to change over time is not to say beneficial mutations arise without God's influence. All benefits in mutation are miracles, and there are no miracles absent God. Darwin knew this to be true once, but lost his soul in the end.
He was a rich boy, born to wealth, who ran from home and faith to marry his cousin and abased himself as a man by allowing his work to overtake his family life, looking for a way to justify his social classes bigotry, by covering it in hypocrisy. Nothing more...
Once again, to return to the
ideal that he was ranting incoherently on the loss of his own faith read his subsequent and much more hedonistic works specifically aimed at God beginning with; "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex".
On the Origin of Species, is not about how species originated. He never gives us that font of knowledge and evolutionists still have yet to do so.
The books better title should have been; "A Bias Examination of God's Creation and Why I don't
Believe in Him".