Featured Evolution biologically impossible!

Did you perhaps mean to say that abiogenesis is impossible?

 

I hafta agree. In HS I had a Christian biology teacher. He stood in fronta the class and said, "This textbook, which I must teach you from, sez that birds evolved from lixards."

"Now lookit what all we're asking that lizard to do-turn its scales into feathers, and turn its jaws & teeth into a beak. Then, it gets complicated. We're asking it to reverse the direction of bend of its arms & legs. (Note that lizards' limbs bend in the same direction as ours do, while most birds' limbs bend the opposite way.) And most of all, turn its cold-blooded chemistry into warm-blooded chemistry, same as ours! "

" Now, cold-blooded is NOT primitive! it's ideal for creatures living in an almost-unchanging climate. A cold-blooded animal requires only 1/10 the amounta food required by a warm-blooded one of equal weight & activity level. It'd require MASSIVE chemical changes from cold-blooded to warm-blooded, something that wouldn't occur from one generation to the next. That's why there are no "missing linx" between birds and lizards...THEY NEVER EXISTED!"

" Now, I can't tellya what to believe, but not for one nanosecond do I believe birds evolved from lizards! if that were so, then why are there still an abundance of many species of lizards still thriving all over the world? How come they didn't all evolve into birds?"

This was before the New-Age-Liberals tried to ban God from public schools, but I believe a teacher could still legally express the same reasoning in a classroom today. this teacher knew such an assault upon religious freedom was coming, and so shaped his remarx accordingly, while still getting the Creation message across.

 

Your teacher obviously never learned what evolution is or how it works.

 

The argument of "if Creature B evolved from Creature A, then why are there still so many Creature A's..." is a weak argument.

If you want to argue the improbability of evolution through means of chemical changes required from one form to the next, or through the necessary genetic changes to move from a small rodent like creature to a fully formed and functioning man, then an argument exists. The "why do we still have monkeys" argument is just boilerplate nonsense that fires up the fundamental crowd that, unfortunately, is vastly uneducated in scientific matters, yet wants to debate science.

 

This would be a good place to make the argument.

 

ITL-----why don't you spend a little time in elaboration for us!! Cause us to understand beyond a shadow of a doubt on how evolution works!!! Prove it right before our very eyes!!!

:type::saint::saint:

 

If you like I can suggest somethings to read. Something tells me (ie your punctuation) that you have no desire to even learn or be informed about any other view of creation then the one you hold.

 

What should your use of "then" above tell people?

 

Tom, I meant that an argument can be made on those technical grounds. I never meant to imply that I was the one to make it. I was an English major / History minor in school. Complex evolutionary biology was not exactly my strong suit. I don't mind discussing it, though I admit I can only go so far in the technical details of it.

I've seen the educational programming that claims that certain creatures evolved into larger forms because the creatures that acted as predators to them were no longer in the picture. This is a tenuous idea to me, especially considering the relatively weak manner in which the programming presented it.

Again, I wish I could provide a stronger technical background for you. I stand by my statement that certain arguments used against evolution are weak. That should not be taken as me condoning or condemning any point of view.

 

Curiously birds do have scales, look at their feet

...and feathers and hairlike protofeathers have been observed in fossilized dino-era animals in China.

As to the "reverse the direction of bend of its arms & legs" - it's a shame such a poorly educated biology teacher is educating the children.
It is not the joint that is reversed but an elongation of various bones; the backwards bend of the leg is really analagous to our ankle.

Re: warm and cold-blooded chemistry -this topic is still being debated among researchers but there is solid evidence that there was not always as clear a distinction as there is now.

Evidence for evolution is evident if you're open to seeing it.

Rob

 

Ahhh... there's the catch

No one believes in DARWINIAN EVOLUTION anymore!

It was the first evolutionary theory proposed and is quite dated.

Rob

 

Jordan, this is simply a false statement made on perhaps some emotional or visceral basis. There are a number of lines of evidence which support a evolutionary model for biology and the diversity of life. You can of course ignore it or even "poo poo" it, but doing so does not make it any less real.

 

And BTW, Darwinian evolution suggests that "natural selection" as the mechanism of change. Even this mechanism can of course be a means and method of God. It is the "absolute naturalists" that preach the message of no creator necessary.

 

Please do enjoy the read:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I can provide you with some additional interesting reads if you like.

 

I understand, and thanks. I was an English major/Spanish minor in school, so my background in the sciences is limited, too.

My point is that in this thread, we have several folks defending evolution. But the defense is mainly an assertion that it's a valid view. I'd like to hear details. Surely it can't be so complicated that it can't be explained to us neanderthals who believe the Biblical account of our origins.

That's all I'm asking. Make the case why it's valid. And why my view is not.

 

I don't really know what bible you read but mine simply says that God created the heaven [Hebrew=sky] and the earth [Hebrew=land] in six days.
Your interpretation is that means "6 literal consecutive days...".

God's word is eternal and trustworthy but our interpretation of God's word can be faulty.

I believe that the creation that is around us is a reflection (albeit a marred reflection) of the God that created it. Both are revelation of a type.

If what I perceive in the world doesn't line up with what I read in scripture I should examine my presuppositions (what I believe about the world) and develop new ways to view the world.

On the other hand, if how I interpret scripture doesn't agree with what I see in the world, then I should examine the way I interpret of scripture.
We shouldn't make scripture say what it wasn't meant to say.

There's got to be some give and take as we align ourselves with God and are slowly transformed into his image.

Some of us still need a lot of work [fingers pointing at me].

Rob

 

Thanks Rob for your contributions and especially the posture of humility.