11.01.2006

More on the Evolution Train, Let's think it through!

Similarities don’t prove evolution

Charles Darwin believed that similar structures in different animals strongly suggested a common evolutionary ancestor for them.

‘What can be more curious’, he said, ‘than that the hand of a man, formed for grasping, that of a mole for digging, the leg of the horse, the paddle of the porpoise, and the wing of the bat, should all be constructed on the same pattern, and should include similar bones, in the same relative positions?’1

Darwin concluded that this similarity was, as he quoted Professor Flower, ‘powerfully suggestive of true relationship, of inheritance from a common ancestor’.2

This idea that a fundamental similarity in structures is due to common descent is called homology. But this still-common idea is not in the slightest a proof of evolution. It is simply an assumption by those who reject creation.

Darwin revealed this was his position when he said some believe ‘that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan’. He finished that sentence by saying, ‘but this is not a scientific explanation.’3 He was therefore ruling out the possibility of creation based on a common plan by implying it was not scientific, so he wouldn’t believe it whether it was true or not.

In many cases what are called homologous organs are produced by the action of different genes.4 For example, you could change by mutation the gene that governed the development of the alleged ancestral vertebrate forelimb a million times and never produce, say, a seal’s flipper or man’s arm. Their development is controlled by different genes.5 (See ‘A serious problem for homology’ also in this magazine.)

Even similarities among somewhat similar creatures reveal that the differences are more important than the similarities. For example, look at the hands of four primates: tarsier, gibbon, chimpanzee, and human. Despite the similarities in their hands, the differences are what makes each most suitable for its way of life. The tarsier leaps and clings, and has large finger pads to help it do this. The gibbon swings from the trees, so has long, strong fingers for swinging. The chimpanzee may be able to manipulate very crude tools with its stubby thumb, but the human’s thumb faces the forefinger, which provides dexterity for countless purposes—from threading a needle to mountain climbing…from carving wood to buttoning a shirt.

So-called homologous structures are no proof of common descent, so are no proof of evolution. Darwin’s approach—to reject the creation explanation as unscientific because you don’t want to believe it—is not rational. This is particularly so when the facts are readily explained as the product of a Designer who created each unique structure to fulfill a different purpose.

9 comments:

Matt said...

No, no, Jon, you got it wrong, man. We didn't evolve. The earth was seeded with life by an alien civilization, and the earth is their giant pietri dish. Come on man, get it right! This alien culture will return in the year 2064 to reveal their presence to mankind, bestowing gifts of technological superiority, ushering in the dawn of a new age of enlightenment and peace. Then they're going to nuke the earth and start over.

Seriously dude, come on. Thinking that God designed the universe is just too farfetched and unbelievable.

wasmachstdugern said...

yeah these aliens still communicate w/me via ham radio in my parents basement.

Nate said...

the flaw in your theory is that theres no proof that god exists. you can say that god made animal bone structures similar because he wanted to, and not because of evolution. you could also say that it rains because sometimes, water splashes out the side of gods giant swimming pool in the sky when he does a canon ball, and not because evaporated water particles colect in the sky then fall when they cluster together. If you asume that there is some omnipotent being controling everything(regardles of the fact that theres no proof), science has no meaning because god can just make anything happen with no rules to hinder him. Besides creationism isnt even a real science, its only argument is that evolution cant exists because a book said that god made everything. Evolution is a real science with real facts and proof, so i think it makes more sense to say that homologous structures do prove evolution.

Abby said...

Aliens?! yeah,is that supposed to be humor? Listen to your theory. It's "so farfetched and unbelievable". That's my say.

One thought for everyone out there. The theory of evolution contradicts many scientific theories. For example: the law of thermal dynamics states that all order eventually becomes disorganized. We see that all the time in nature. Just look at the way an abandoned home deteriorates after time. Also there's the law of conservation of matter which says that any substance put with another substance becomes a combination of those substances. Like,a cake for example, If you put flour and eggs and sugar and whatever else you use to make a cake together then you would get a combination of all the contents or dough. You won't get say a lap out out of the contents you created the cake with because you never put the laptop in there. These are both laws that have been proven through many experiments and they have both been excepted. Evolution is a theory and it hasn't been proven. We haven't found enough or even complete transitional fossils that Darwin expected and the amount of dust found on the moon doesn't show that the earth lasted as long as evolution predicted. According to the amount dust on the moon, the earth is very young. Research it. There's more.

Anonymous said...

okay, people who say creationism is just a bunch of bull need to at least know what creationism is instead of saying things like "water splashes out the side of gods giant swimming pool in the sky when he does a canon ball" are completely unaware of what educated creationists argue. Yes, you could say that having a supernatural being controlling everything, creating earth in perfect balance so everything works with everything else is far fetched. But how much more out there is it to say that by chance a random super bacteria (that we don't even know how THAT got there), earth was created and that all the billions or trillions of organisms, some with very complex genomes, were all evolved from this.

Mighty Elroy said...

What many who love to criticize "intelligent design" or "creationism" fail to grasp is that if God did create the world, then it is not far fetched to make the connection that all the laws of science that we have fabricated to explain how the world works were also created by that higher power. In all honesty, there is a much greater likelihood that the truth of how life came to be on Earth lies somewhere between the "7 days" in Genesis and the classical Darwinian explanation instead of fully in one camp at the total exclusion of the other.

And as far as there being no "proof" that God exists, well, that's only for those who choose to not see what is in front of them.

David said...

Last comment was good, and I'd like to elaborate. To begin with, it takes much more faith to believe in evolution than in God. Also, the similarities that many living things possess, such as a hand, may be very similar in many ways because it is simply a good design. Why would God make a monkey or their 'relatives' have a poorly designed hand when we as human have a great one. It is of high functionality and serves animals as well as us.

Anonymous said...

where are the transition fossils from chimp to human ?

Anonymous said...

I feel the best answer to this is to break things down. Religion, the basis of creationism, is in itself a way of life. Religions tell you to do this and don't do that. Whether or not there is a God is irrelevant for the time being. Religion was then used for manipulation, in terms of the creation of Hell. Oh, if you do certain things I don't want you to, you will go through eternal suffering... Okay now the problem of if there is a creationist God. lets assume has created everything in this world, and has deemed what happens will happen. Why then, would he create a world in which he would need to change? Yes, on the seventh day God did rest according to Genesis. This all powerful God who makes organisms as he wants has to rest, and constantly change organisms over time?

Evolution... to start out, I will say that many scientific theories have been disproved over time. For millions of years people thought the Earth was flat, that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and other things we consider absurd today. Evolution today is just a theory, in the same way that gravity is. Who knows- maybe one day all of this will be disproved. However for the time being, evolution is the most probably cause of changing organisms (with homologous structures as a good support).

As a note, I believe in God, but I take religion with a grain of salt. I am open to any explanation of this and just choose to see the world in the way that makes the most sense to me (as all of you do).