Is The Jury Still Out on Darwin? Part 1

This is a cat. Aww...It evolved, I think, according to Darwin enthusiasts from this...



A 'Big' Cat. Scary! The little cat is cute and fluffy and easily killed. The big cat is big and scary and can eat a man alive. Now, I'm no biblical fundamentalist. I am, however, a mentalist, who can justifiably question how the little cat according to Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' theory fits in his idea, in this pictorial compare and contrast arrangement. I am open to suggestions. Could it be that cats decided to evolve deliberately in order to become cute and fluffy, so that mankind would stop killing them and keep them as pets, give them food for free and take them down the vet every now and then for a general check up while having their balls chopped off? If this is so, why did the 'big' cats not just become more friendly and decide to tone down their aggressive wild cat behaviour and put on a cute expression that drew from mankind sympathy and a wish to befriend them and feed them for free?

Or is the simple fact of the matter that the Lord made some cats who are fierce, scary and wild and then He made little, cute, fluffy cats which we could keep as pets, stroke, at whom we could delight when they play with string, watch them do 'the funniest things,' send video footage onto 'Animals do the Funniest Things' and upload to YouTube and keep lonely batchelors and spinsters from going insane?