Comments on: Evidence For Evolution: Homology – similarities between creatures & Atavism

By: cwar068

cwar068 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:52:08 +0000

Something wrong with the above wiki link for list of human evolution history fossils:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolut...

By: cwar068

cwar068 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:51:25 +0000

By: cwar068

cwar068 — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:10:58 +0000

[youtube Vjm64g3VRuE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjm64g3VRuE youtube]

By: cwar068

cwar068 — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:06:52 +0000

Here's a quote from Britannica Online Encyclopaedia:" in biology, similarity of the structure, physiology, or development of different species of organisms based upon their descent from a common evolutionary ancestor. Homology is contrasted with analogy, which is a functional similarity of structure based not upon common evolutionary origins but upon mere similarity of use. Thus the forelimbs of such widely differing mammals as humans, bats, and deer are homologous; the form of construction and the number of bones in these varying limbs are practically identical, and represent adaptive modifications of the forelimb structure of their common early mammalian ancestors. Analogous structures, on the other hand, can be represented by the wings of birds and of insects; the structures are used for flight in both types of organisms, but they have no common ancestral origin at the beginning of their evolutionary development. A 19th-century British biologist, Sir Richard Owen, was the first to define both homology and analogy in precise terms."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/270557/...

By: cwar068

cwar068 — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:06:13 +0000

I included a link for a site by Berkley University where you can actually learn about homologies.

The video, which is American Christian creationist propaganda, is trying to confuse people with talking about analogies, and past mistakes, without explaining them.

Analogies occur when traits have evolved separately through parallel evolution and do not indicate shared ancestry. For example the flippers of whales and sharks are analogous, however they evolved separately. The whale is descended from land based animals related more closely to birds than to fish. However, even though the forelimb of a mammal can be adapted through evolution to be used as a flipper, because of the common oceanic environment that whales share with sharks, it is far less likely that the underlying bone structure common to all mammals evolved independently in the whale lineage.

Whales in fact have hind legs and pelvises within their marine bodies. Why do you think Allah would have put hind legs and pelvises in organisms he intended to live in the water? http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/... (picture at bottom of page)

By: cwar068

cwar068 — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:05:46 +0000

Well a quick look at an example of a tautological argument in wikipedia gives this quote by Bush:

"It's no exaggeration to say the undecideds could go one way or another."

Above we see the same idea given in different words.

Now I argued that "Similarities between creatures can be evidence for their having shared a common ancestor".

"Similarities between creatures" and "evidence for their having a common ancestor" are not the same thing. This is a statement which can be investigated, whereas it would be pointless to investigate whether undecideds could go one way or another as they could do so by definition.

Your claim that no homologous traits have been identified is totally false.

Creationists constantly fabricate arguments against evolution which rely solely on the ignorance of people to be believable.

My major reference for this post was Biology (Campbell & Reece, 2008) which is a mainstream introductory text used for Biology (including for medical students) at Universities around the world including the University of Auckland.

By: cwar068

cwar068 — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:21:14 +0000

Also, to say that there are no fossils showing primitive (in an evolutionary sense) characteristics is not true either. Textbooks on Biology are full of references to them.
Here’s a list of fossils which help us understand our own evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_(inte...

By: darwinismrefuted.com

darwinismrefuted.com — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 11:26:08 +0000

Homology Theory. Evidence for common ancestry or a common design?

Homology is a tautological argument, advanced on the basis of no other evidence than an apparent physical resemblance. This argument has never once been verified by a single concrete discovery in all the years since Darwin's day. Nowhere in the world has anyone come up with a fossil remain of the imaginary common ancestor of creatures with homologous structures. Furthermore, the following issues make it clear that homology provides no evidence that evolution ever occurred.

1. One finds homologous organs in creatures belonging to completely different phyla, among which evolutionists have not been able to establish any sort of evolutionary relationship;

2. The genetic codes of some creatures that have homologous organs are completely different from one another.

3. The embryological development of homologous organs in different creatures is completely different.

Check the links bellow to examine each of these points one by one.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_homology….

[youtube pMVBFJCqFXc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMVBFJCqFXc youtube]