No. "Basic structural similarity" is analogy, not homology.
In evolutionary biology, analogous structures are biological structures having similar or corresponding functions but not from the same evolutionary origin. In other words, species use these biological structures for the same purpose and yet these species are from unrelated evolutionary lines.
Analogous structures have similar functions but with dissimilar evolutionary origins. Know more about its definition, examples, and process here.
www.biologyonline.com
Yes. It gets difficult and a lot of work involves untangling the anatomical data of fossils. For example, Alan Feduccia argued that birds and dinosaurs evolved from a common ancestor, basing his argument on which digits were reduced in bird and dinosaur forelimbs. Eventually, he was shown to be wrong about which digits, and his theory was refuted.
Sorry, that's wrong, tool. Depends on evidence. Which is why Feduccia's argument wasn't quickly dismissed. A great deal of work was required to sort out his claims and determine if they were correct or not. Would you like to learn about how it was finally resolved?
It probably seems unfair to YECs that when scientists learn that they were mistaken, they just accept the reality and change their theories to fit. Science looks at the evidence and finds the best their to explain it. YEC assumes a conclusion and tries to make the facts fit the assumption. Nothing better explains the logical differences between science and YEC.
It's a mathematical argument. Most YEC arguments on probability are something like "the likelihood of (large number) of amino acids in this order in a protein is so unlikely as to be impossible." Which, if a valid argument, would prove that poker games are impossible. Figures don't lie, but liars often figure. I could show you the math and a simple simulation to test the assumption, if you like.
Well, tell me how many mutations you think would be necessary to convert an archosaur leg into a functional wing. Then we'll do the math. Let's say 100. (obviously a great number of non-useful mutations would occur and be rejected by natural selection during the same time).
Each step in such an evolution depends on the last stage. So 1/100! or about 1/9.3^157. Very small likelihood, um? Which is why we never see a complex adaption form identically in two separate lineages. Just 10 would give us a likelihood of about 1/3,600,000.
So you've changed your position? The reason that bats and pterosaurs have different wings is that they both had to go through the same process of random mutation and natural selection. The odds of all those random mutations happening would more unlikely than shuffling a deck of cards and getting the same order of cards twice. Creationist arguments on probability are essentially arguing that one can't shuffle a deck of cards once. Would you like me to show you?
You've assumed that the landscape is much simpler than it is. For example, New World and Old World vultures are superficially very similar. But they evolved to fitness in entirely different ways. One example, is that one uses vision and the other uses sense of smell as hunting strategies. But there's more. The confusion between analogy and homology is a function of YECs being unable to comprehend how it all works and how evolution is opportunistic, rather than prescient.
The hope for convergence lies in the fenestration occuring precisely in the right place, involving precisely the same bones, connective tissue, muscles and nerves. There is supporting genetic and neurological data, supporting the way this happened:
Devolopment
Volume 144 Issue 22
November 2017
The evolution of cortical development: the synapsid-diapsid divergence
All these mutations happening to fall in exactly the same order, seems very unlikely. Why not just accept the evidence? Understand, the odds aren't for the result happening once. They are for the same result happening twice. And that is why poker games and analogous structures are possible.
It's pretty simple. You see, the paleontological data predicts that one will see genetic data supporting the divergences of synapsids and diapsids from an anapsid ancestor. And when the genetic basis of these developmental changes were found, that prediction was confirmed. It's been confirmed by other research.
Science AdvancesVol. 9, No. 46
Turtle skull development unveils a molecular basis for amniote cranial diversity
Amniote skulls display diverse architectural patterns including remarkable variations in the number of temporal arches surrounding the upper and lower temporal fenestrae. However, the cellular and molecular basis underlying this diversification remains elusive. Turtles are a useful model to understand skull diversity due to the presence of secondarily closed temporal fenestrae and different extents of temporal emarginations (marginal reduction of dermal bones). Here, we analyzed embryos of three turtle species with varying degrees of temporal emargination and identified shared widespread coexpression of upstream osteogenic genes Msx2 and Runx2 and species-specific expression of more downstream osteogenic genes Sp7 and Sparc in the head. Further analysis of representative amniote embryos revealed differential expression patterns of osteogenic genes in the temporal region, suggesting that the spatiotemporal regulation of Msx2, Runx2, and Sp7 distinguishes the temporal skull morphology among amniotes. Moreover, the presence of Msx2- and/or Runx2-positive temporal mesenchyme with osteogenic potential may have contributed to their extremely diverse cranial morphology in reptiles.
gn
Some might deny the evidence, but there it is. No point in fighting the reality.
www.christianpost.com
