Replies

I'll bet you can't produce a quote from any textbook that makes this argument.

Don't you trust me?

From Biology by Cambell, Reece, and Mitchell, 5th eddition (1999) pp 423-424.

"Descent with modification is evident in anatomical similarities between species grouped in the same taxonomic category. For example, many of the same skeletal elements make up the forelimbs of humans, cats, whales, bats, and all other mammals, although these appendages have very different functions (figure 22.9). Surely, the best way to build a bat's wing is not also the best way to build whale's flipper. Such anatomical peculiarities make no sense if the structures are uniquely engineered and unrelated."

Talk about ego. These guys feel they know best how to engineer living beings. Since God failed to do it to their specs, he cannot possibly exist. QED.

That reeks a lot like ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny (just not in so many words).

Even so everybody claims that the biogentic law is as dead as a doornail, supposedly officially exorcised from biology textbooks in the Fifties, being for all practical purposes extinct for serious theoretical inquiry in the Twenties, take a look at the pictures displayed in:

The Revised and Expanded Answers Book. Batten, Don. Arizona, Master, 1990 (pg 120)

Basic Biology. American Guidance Service. Charles LaRue ed. 1992 & 2001. (pg 264)

I fail to see any distinction between Haeckel's embryos of 1892 and the drawings, for which he was tried for fraud, convicted and summarily fired from his college. What is trying to be presented here, in a modern day biology book, when you line up fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, pig, rabbit and humans in various stages of fetal development?

They're teaching the science of evolution, that's what. What they don't teach is the fraud upon which the science is based.

I looked, but I didn't actually see a claim that there are no gods in the quote that you provided. Perhaps you could point it out, boldface the particular part of your citation that explicitly states as much?

Don't you trust me?

Why should I trust you? You lied about what the book said. Go back and read your original "summary" of the book and compare it to what the book actually said.

Surely, the best way to build a bat's wing is not also the best way to build whale's flipper.

Indeed, a bat's wing bones "should" look more like a bird's wing bones than they do those of a human arm. They don't.

The line of reasoning there is perfectly clear. You reserve the right to cite such as a direct literally stated attack upon the existence of God? No more with you!

Here is your paraphrase of the book:

To make it even worse, the book goes on to point out that there are (unarguable, in my opinion) similarities between construction of a whale fin and a human hand. Based on this, they conclude that there is no God. Somewhere, between a fact (anatomical similarity) and a conclusion (there is no God) is a leap of logic that I simply could not penetrate.

And here, according to you, is what the book actually said:

Descent with modification is evident in anatomical similarities between species grouped in the same taxonomic category. For example, many of the same skeletal elements make up the forelimbs of humans, cats, whales, bats, and all other mammals, although these appendages have very different functions (figure 22.9). Surely, the best way to build a bat's wing is not also the best way to build whale's flipper. Such anatomical peculiarities make no sense if the structures are uniquely engineered and unrelated."

I have no intention or hope of making you see the point. I merely put the case before the lurkers. I trust them to form their own conclusion. But it is interesting to observe what leaps of logic you are willing to make.