Homology
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Homology in living organisms has often been used as "undeniable" proof that all creatures evolved from a common ancestor. The belief is that if multiple animals evolved from the same animal originally, than there would be structural similarities between them. Since we find such similarities in organisms, than they must evolved from the same thing, right? Or were they all designed by a divine creator to follow the same pattern. Did this creator come up with such a brilliant and well functioning design, that He could use it in every single one of his creatures? Homology would make sense if the physical similarities followed a specific path of change. But, there are gaps and inconsistencies as with every other aspect of the theory of Evolution.
Contents |
Morphological Homology
In biology, homology is defined as any structure within a creature’s body that is similar in shape, placement, and/or function. This is considered different from analogy, where a structure serves a similar purpose by way of a structure that is similar in outward appearance. Evolutionary biologists often relate these similarities in body structure to point to the idea that all living organisms derived from the same original ancestor. It seems plausible or, in the evolutionist’s perspective, undeniably logical that if one animal has a limb or an organ similar in shape or function to that of another, though differing slightly in size, purpose, or ultimate necessity, it has a common ancestor that possessed the common trait and passed it down to both descendants. Evolutionists also see this as an explanation for the existence of vestigial structures in the body. A vestigial structure is any organ, bone, etcetera, that is shown to have no function whatsoever, is not necessary for the creature’s survival, or is useless to serve the purpose that a homologous structure in another creature would serve. Some morphological homology, or homology in the body, is developmental (meaning the particular body part developed from the same embryonic tissue during early life in the womb) while some is evolutionary (meaning that the particular body part evolved from that of an early, common ancestor and, as mentioned before, it was passed down to more than one descendant). [1]
Eyes
Some homologous structures, such as the eyes of a human and the eyes of an octopus are very similar but are extremely distant on the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists, then, are quick to label these structures as analogous, though they are really more homologous, in order to save their theory. This is just another example of how evolutionary scientists only look for answers that line up with their dogma instead of considering scientific facts that could contradict it. It is unscientific to believe that such complex and similar structures could have come about separately, by way of chance mutations, at drastically different times. But, to say that they evolved at relatively the same time breaks down the whole theory of the order in which things evolved.
Wings
Wing structures are also pushed aside and labeled as analogous because according to Darwinism, these structures have to have evolved at four different times during history. The likelihood of such similar, yet separate, occurrences is incredibly minute because they do not make sense in the framework of either natural selection or mutation.
Mammals
Mammals are another strong example of the flaws in evolution. Mammals are divided into three groups called monotremes, placentals, and marsupials. According to evolution, these groups all evolved and developed individually after appearing in history. The problem is that many animals among placentals that have counterparts, so to speak, that are marsupials, the North American Wolf and the Tazmanian Wolf for example. These counterparts have very similar, or homologous (though the common evolutionist would probably label them as analogous), bodily structures. Once again, it is incredibly unlikely that these very similar creatures could have evolved separately, while remaining completely unrelated to each other. [2]
For or Against Creationism
The idea that homology proves that all living creatures developed from a common ancestor derives from the belief that a divine creator would be ultimately original and unique in his designs of every single creature. Though, just because God would have infinite power and ability for creativity, doesn’t mean that He is restricted to being original. Our creator devised a model framework that was effective, so why shouldn’t He use this framework multiple times? If you were designing cars for an automobile company, you may differ in your plans for the outward appearance of different models, but it would make no sense to try to rebuild the entire engine or rework all of the wiring, or even to remove the wheels and try to invent some other method of getting the car to move. To reuse an ingenious and perfectly capable design is a sign of intelligence. [3]
Genetic Homology (or lack thereof)
Gradually mutating genes are held by evolutionists to be a cause of physical characteristics that evolved gradually over time. So, obviously if two animals have homologous morphological structures, than the genes that produced those structures should be homologous as well. Unfortunately for Darwinism, these genes are not homologous. In a vertebrate embryo, a countable number of segments divide the tissue. Each segment or group of segments is destined to develop into a particular structure. Studies conducted on six kinds of vertebrates showed that the front and back limbs of each creature developed from different groups of segments (especially the back limbs). [4] Homologous organs are produced by non-homologous DNA and homologous DNA develop into non-homologous organs. Also, homologous structures are shown to go through completely different embryological stages of development, when they should be the same up to the point of the evolutionary difference. Pere Alberch wrote that these differing embryological stages in homologous structures are "the rule rather than the exception". [5]
Which Does it Prove?
A common ancestor seems to make sense when you are told that homologous structures developed from the same creature. Yet, you have factor in all of the flaws in the "proof" that homology supposedly provides. Mammals that are said to have evolved individually, but have homologous structures, or homologous organs that formed from non-homologous DNA all disprove this theory. Also, the presumption that a divine creator would always be completely original in His creations, does not take into account that a working model that is being reused shows signs of intelligence. There is plenty of proof to show that homology is an extremely poor basis for supporting evolution, but rather supports intelligent design.
|
Homology - similarity of features based on common descent. |
References
- Homology/biology Wikipedia. www.wikipedia.org.
- Not to be used again Creation Ministries International. Journal of Creation. by James Patrick Holding. Volume 21(1) 2007. www.creationontheweb.com
- The Invalidity of Morphological Homology by Adnan Oktar. www.darwinismrefuted.com
- The Genetic and Embryological Impasse of Homology by Adnan Oktar. www.darwinismrefuted.com
- A serious problem for homology Creation Ministries International. Creation Magazine. by Robert E. Kofahl, Ph.D. Issue 14(2):31. March 1992. www.creationontheweb.com
 Browse |
See Also
- Homology can't be evidence of ancestry if it is defined thus Response to Talk.Origins
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
