First, the lesson explicitly makes room for the “testimony of the geological record,” distinguishing between what we know by divine revelation and what we know by human study. Nothing said here contradicts in the slightest what is presented in the current lesson – but the current lesson stops short with divine revelation and makes no mention of secular knowledge.
Second, when discussing the creation of man, the 1928 manual draws on B.H. Roberts’s writings and his belief that man has existed in three states: as “intelligence,” as spiritual creation, and as physical creation. This is a handy model for making sense of the few scattered details in scripture, and it’s my view mostly because it is comprehensible to me. However, you won’t see this tripartite model taught in current manuals because it goes beyond what is clearly present in the scripture, and alternate models, based on the same scattered details but with the dots connected in different patterns, have been proposed. Without further revelation, we just don’t know enough to teach any model without the clear label of “SPECULATION.”
This may be a good point to repeat my earlier comment: I don’t offer these old lessons as being better but merely different, not a substitute or replacement for the manual but another way of approaching the same material.