Image from ICR article.
Posted on 09/20/2013 8:21:26 AM PDT by fishtank
Does 'Homology' Prove Evolution? by Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D. *
Why do you share DNA with an ant? Why do mammals generally have four limbs? Why do different creatures’ limbs often develop via similar genetic programs? Evolutionists attribute these biological similarities—this “homology”—to a “common ancestor” among diverse creatures.
For example, evolutionists like Stephen Matheson reject “common design” by an omnipotent Designer as an explanation for these facts. “As a competing explanation, design is currently a failure….We have no good reason to suppose that [shared anatomical patterns and genetic programs] could not have been otherwise, and in some cases, we know that it can work in other ways….To unseat common ancestry, or at least to rival it, design theory has to show that life could not have been otherwise” (emphasis added).1
Is the creationist explanation of “design” in trouble? Do we really have no good reason—from a design perspective—to expect similarities among the anatomical, developmental, and genetic patterns we see? Let’s apply what I call the “parking lot test” to Matheson’s evolutionary claims.
A quick trip to the nearest parking lot helps us to unravel evolutionary logic and arrive at the true explanation for motor vehicle origins. Do cars share a similar “anatomy”? By far, most run on four wheels rather than three or five. Is the “developmental program” (e.g., the construction process) for each vehicle shared? Is the “genetic program” (e.g., the blueprint) for a Honda Civic fundamentally different from the blueprint for a Ford Focus? Profound similarities underlie vehicles whose origins are continents apart!
By evolutionary standards, these vehicles should have originated from a common ancestor millions of years ago. “We have no good reason to suppose” that all cars should share a similar chassis or overall structural pattern. We might search in vain for the definitive scientific paper showing that four wheels are the optimum design for cars. We might never find the peer-reviewed papers which performed exhaustive tests of every possible car blueprint. Yet we know that all cars were designed by intelligent designers and were not the product of time and chance. Evolutionary logic fails the “parking lot test.”
What does this discussion reveal? It reveals that some evolutionists are very poor at reasoning from a design perspective. Hence, if evolutionary logic and reasoning cannot correctly explain the origin of things whose intelligent design has been directly observed (e.g., motor vehicles), why should we trust evolutionary logic when applied to things whose origins we have not directly observed (e.g., dinosaurs)?
Simple “parking lot” type tests expose even more weaknesses in evolutionary reasoning about the existence of shared features. For example, evolutionists cite so-called “transitional forms” in the fossil record as premier evidence of descent with modification from a common starting point. Real transitional forms do not exist—we only see fossils that blend features of two fundamentally different categories of creatures (e.g., Tiktaalik, a supposed transition between sea and land creatures). Evolutionists might again assert that we have “no good reason” to think that these creatures were designed.
Yet a trip to a military base—or even to the Wisconsin Dells for a “duck” tour—reveals the error of this reasoning.2 Not only have intelligent military engineers designed both motorized land vehicles (e.g., tanks and troop carriers) and sea vehicles (e.g., aircraft carriers, destroyers, and submarines), they have also created amphibious assault vehicles. These vehicles are “transitional” in their design in that they blend the characteristics of fully functional land and sea vehicles. Hence, creatures that blend features of two fundamentally different categories of creatures are products of deliberate engineering.
We may have “no good reason” to expect that “homology” is the product of intelligent design—until we take a trip to the parking lot.
References
Matheson, S. New Limbs from Old Fins, Part 6. The BioLogos Forum. Posted on biologos.com on October 20, 2011, accessed June 26, 2013. For example, those offered through wisconsinducktours.com.
* Dr. Jeanson is Deputy Director for Life Sciences Research and received his Ph.D. in Cell and Developmental Biology from Harvard University.
Cite this article: Jeanson, N. 2013. Does "Homology" Prove Evolution? Acts & Facts. 42 (9): 20.
Image from ICR article.
No, it doesn’t prove it.
But there was a FIRST car. I’m just saying this person’s logic is flawed, all cars do share a common ancestor which was created by Henry Ford.
I’m not saying I don’t believe in intelligent design, but there are far more complexities between machines, and organic life.
However God did it he must have used the same type of blueprint for life. Or if the universe is teeming with life, is it not to be expected that all life could have DNA, or evolution would have some sort of basic rules much like physics? I dunno. I’m not a physicist or a biologist, but there are similarities in all things.
There is more to it than that.
From Steve Jones "Darwin's Ghost," a modern update of all chapters in Darwin's "Origin," we have ...
"About a thousand genes are shared by every organism, however simple or complicated."
"One set of genes is found everywhere. It translates the information coded in the DNA and allows it to make proteins. the job is so essential that such structures changed little over millions of years."
Get the book, and ... happy reading.
Henry Ford didn’t create the automobile. The first modern-type gasoline-powered car was the invention of Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz in Germany around 1885. There had been steam-powered cars before them. Ford was the first to mass produce gasoline-powered cars for public consumption.
The argument that homology supports evolution is pretty thin, but it gets even worse when you take into account that Darwinists also posit “parallel evolution” and “convergent evolution” as additional mechanisms for producing similar traits, besides simply inheriting those traits from a common ancestor.
So, you have two animals that both have, say, a distinctly long proboscis for digging insects out of the ground. Under Darwinism, you could explain this by a) a common ancestor passed the proboscis down to both animals; b) the animals shared a common ancestor, who didn’t have the long proboscis, but they both independently developed similar adaptations from the same common starting point, or c) the animals don’t share a recent common ancestor, but still developed similar adaptations anyway. There is an inherent flexibility in this type of system, in that you can explain the similarity any way that is convenient for you, in order to stay consistent with the other elements of your theory. A hard science would shun that type of flexibility, since it would cast doubt on any conclusion, but evolution embraces it.
Dear Leader told us America invented the automobile. I see you are in need of “re-education”.
Christians attribute these biological similarities—this “homology”—to a “common GOD”
Darn. I thought this was a discussion of the Universal Coefficient Theoram. Oh, well...
That’s down the hall on your left.
From "Darwin's Ghost" by Steve Jone, a modern update on every chapter in Darwin's "Origin," we have ..."
The Origin makes no mention of "evolution," a word whose sense has gone full circle since it began. In its Latin root it referred to the unfolding of a scroll.
The evolutionist picks up a ball joint and creates a car around it without asking what about the ball joint makes it predicate to the car's existence, because he doesn't know where in the car the ball joint is supposed to be mounted, because the design for the chassis - the higher form of design, if you will -- into which it must fit perfectly doesn't yet exist!
Possibly more simply and biologically relevant to humans at least, why would 574 Amino Acids of the life sustaining protein, hemoglobin, "evolve" themselves into a specific geometric order which happens to have a life-sustaining ability to reversibly exchange oxygen for iron absent first having the organism in existence, dependent upon that biologically complementary design in order for the organism to exist at all?
Now multiply that by millions of proteins and many of their uniquely life-sustaining functions and let's have the atheist explain why and when he chose to design himself that way!
How's that about first causes?
By the way, is the two wheel ox cart the predicate design to the Harley Davidson motorcycle? It has two wheels after all! You know, homology and all that ...
FReegards!
Yes, Darwin didn’t use that term, but his devotees do.
Okay but what about useless things like our appendix? Tonsils, wisdom teeth and all those useless genes and proteins that have no use.
Tonsils and the appendix are not useless. That’s been known for years.
Being just a tad presumptuous there aren't we?
There was a time back when I was studying biology as an undergrad when arrogant "scientists" at the time made all sorts of statements about what they mistakenly mis-characterized as "junk-DNA," simply because they in their self-satisfied ineptitude hadn't determined a function for it.
30+ years later, given the more recent discoveries that have be made in the context of the human genome, well, suffice it to say, there's not a whole lot of scientists who actually even still use that term. I should know - as a biochemist myself, I work with esteemed scientists and physiologists every day
Clearly you must not be much of a studied physiologist, but even a simple Google search will bring you to sites which can be understood by any layman which describe the specialized digestive function of the appendix, and the specialized auto immune functions of tonsils.
"Useless" proteins and genes? I'll challenge you here and now to name one, and then you can draw from your own vast study on the subject to convince readers regarding the reasons why you have personally come to that conclusion about said gene or protein.
FReegards!
First, to discuss science, one must know what makes an idea/hypothesis “scientific”. I for one know that “AGW” or “Climate Chaos” is unscientific. But why do I know that?
Start here:
1. What is scientifically testable doesn't support the AGW premise.
2. AGW is based on fundamentally if not purposefully flawed modeling, not upon any supportive scientific observation.
3. Scientific observation informs one completely differently from media-popularized, but still scientifically flawed, AGW modeling techniques.
4. The earth warms, the earth cools. Not enough scientific evidence exists to support the premise that mankind has much if anything to do with any of that.
5. Until such a time that man can in fact move heaven and earth with something more than what he thinks his self-important ego claims he can do, AGW will not be a credible rationale for any observable science.
Stand up to AGW-ers with the confidence of knowing that when one takes an honest, rather than a political approach to the study of science, the facts are on your, side, if you in turn choose to study the science honestly and to go where the science itself leads -- not to where one intends to lead the "science"!
FReegards!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.