the illusion of Evolution

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Want to learn why life (and a lot of other natural phenomena like rivers, lightning, etc.) look designed? Read this:
Constructal law | Constructal Blog | Sharing information about Constructal Theory or, with lots more detail and documentation:

iu


Of course, if you're a rational IDer in the direction of Michael Denton who thinks (whatever he thinks the designer is) "front loaded" the laws of nature to make things appear designed... that would make some sense.
Evolutionists use common genes and functions as proof of common descent, however it equally proves a common designer who doesn’t reinvent the wheel with each creature He makes, but uses the same building blocks over again, as is both common sense, and is seen in everything human designers engineer.

Using evolutionist logic, you can prove mansions evolved from sheds, because sheds and mansions and every building in between them use common materials and building blocks, and you can lay out a hierarchy of gradually more complex buildings from the simplest - a shed - to the most complex - a mansion - and use common ancestry to prove common descent, and “prove” those buildings evolved.

Then you can write a book stating that though buildings appear to be designed, they really evolved, and write another book about the blind carpenter.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,304
76
✟363,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Evolutionists use common genes and functions as proof of common descent, however it equally proves a common designer who doesn’t reinvent the wheel with each creature He makes, but uses the same building blocks over again

No, that excuse won't work. For example, most human orthopedic problems occur because our skeletons evolved from quadrupeds, and our backs, hips, knees, and feet have flaws that make them likely to fail. It makes perfect sense, knowing our evolutionary history, but it is really horrible "design." Would you like to learn some details on this?

Using evolutionist logic, you can prove mansions evolved from sheds

Only approximately. Sheds came about first, and people made them more and more complex, but it's not precisely an evolutionary process, because there's no genetic basis for it. We say complex buildings evolved from simple beginnings, but it's a figure of speech.

This is the bait-and-switch trick IDers use. And that's been going on since Paley tried to use a watch to prove a designer god. He wanted people to think living things were designed, but he had to find a designed object to make his point. Nothing natural shows a design process, so he used a watch to do it. Which makes the point that natural things are not merely designed; they are built into nature from the start. Living things are natural things, part of the laws of nature, not something cobbled up by some inferior "designer."

Even IDers are starting to back away from that faulty thinking. Here's Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Denton:

t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science–that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called “special creationist school.” According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God’s direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world–that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.

Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There're not! Also it does not matter that they are not there!

In a way, I agree with you, but not for the same reasons, I'm sure.

Regardless, I have no dog in this discussion really since my main focus is on endings rather than beginnings. I just hope you won't hold it against me or see me as a "lesser" Christian if I personally see some value in the Theory of Evolution. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Trusting in Him

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2021
1,063
671
71
Devon
✟49,590.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In a way, I agree with you, but not for the same reasons, I'm sure.

Regardless, I have no dog in this discussion really since my main focus is on endings rather than beginnings. I just hope you won't hold it against me or see me as a "lesser" Christian if I personally see some value in the Theory of Evolution. :cool:

I can respect your different perspective on this and I wish you well, but as you can see. I am very simple and straitforward about taking what the bible says and I'm a very traditional bible believing Christian, who is happy to take everything as being literally what it says.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: smittymatt
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I can respect your different perspective on this and I wish you well, but as you can see. I am very simple and straitforward about taking what the bible says and I'm a very traditional bible believing Christian, who is happy to take everything as being literally what it says.

Alright. That sounds fine to me. Be blessed in that course as you follow our Lord Jesus! :cool:
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And here, you confuse homologous structures with analogous structures. Our forelimbs are very unlike the forelimbs of a horse. They are homologous; the same bones are in each of our limbs, although greatly modified to different purposes.

...they are structurally very different. In many different ways. But they are derived from the same genes, the same embryonic tissues, under control of the same homeobox genes. They are homologous.


So they are similar genetic expressions driving the organization of similar tissues, like I said.


Human and Octopus eyes are structurally very similar and even driven by similar genetic expression. According to your criteria, the human and octopus eyes are most certainly homologous. Oops, but that doesn’t make sense because those Vertebrae and Mollusca would have diverged from each other long before each group developed such an advanced organ… so they couldn’t have derived their eyes from a common ancestor.


Not to worry, in this case evolutionists will infer that the highly similar eye structures evolved independently while recruiting the shared genetic toolkit from their ancient ancestors, a case of “deep homology”...


However, if the Human and Octopus phylogenies happened to be placed more closely together, then the same exact data would be used as proof of homology of the organ as a whole.


The crux of Evolution is what version of its story seems most palatable. For all evolutionists know (and some quietly admit this in the literature) … similar genetic/anatomic expressions could have evolved independently to much higher degree than is currently understood.


“The principle of homology is central to conceptualizing the comparative aspects of morphological evolution. The distinctions between homologous or non-homologous structures have become blurred, however, as modern evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) has shown that novel features often result from modification of pre-existing developmental modules, rather than arising completely de novo. “
Deep homology in the age of next-generation sequencing - PubMed (nih.gov)


However since the whole point of phylogenetics is to organize phylogenies and tell a story of Evolution, evolutionists usually prefer to describe things as being shared and derived from common ancestors, and defer to independent convergence only when necessary.

It’s all just clever storytelling.

Torture data long enough and you can get it to tell you any story you want.


The wings of pterosaurs and wings of bats are analogous; they are very similar, but are derived from different tissues.

I see, so they are dissimilar tissue structures, and thus have dissimilar genetic expressions, like I said. Is this too simple of an explanation? Not loaded with enough unnecessary Evolution-jargon for your taste?


"Homologous" and "analogous" are well-defined and testable.


This isn’t really true at all. Character traits once identified as homologous are routinely redefined as homoplasy (convergently or independently evolved )

Such traits are identified on the basis of what is ‘most likely’ to be the case, or what seems the most likely explanation without upsetting too much of the overall picture of evolutionary history.


Look at the Human and Octopus eye example again… similar phenotypic organization and genetic expression pathways. This would characteristically result in a strong signal of homology. But since that story would throw the entire evolutionary tree into disarray, its homology status is arbitrarily stripped away... its elements are split off into homologous and homoplasious identities as needed to rescue the generally accepted story of evolution.

All proceeding under the assumption that Evolution must be true, which itself is never questioned…. Nor can it be, in principle, when you have boxed yourself into methodological naturalism as the only way to interpret reality, and thus to these institutions, the answer must always be Evolution and only Evolution.


In my experience, Evolutionists are overly confident either out of ignorance or because of a religious zeal to promote the theory, usually a combination of both.

The Evolution story just isn't true. It was written by men for the pride of men. The God of Israel has plainly revealed to us why billions of animals were buried all over the earth. We don't want to see it because it reminds us of the world Judgment before and the world Judgment to come. As the Lord and God, the King of Kings spoke himself: "The Days of Noah" which are coming upon us again at the end. - Matthew 24:37

Jesus is Lord and Savior.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Torah Keeper
Upvote 0

Trusting in Him

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2021
1,063
671
71
Devon
✟49,590.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I have never questioned the existance of God and for me there is no reason why the world we live should be here at all. Logically nothing should exist at all. So it's a miracle and therefore a miracle needs a God. Trying to explain a miracle by looking for a far fetched so called scientific theory, has got some really big problems. Men would rather live a life of sin than admit that there is a God, who is going to judge their sins.

If God did not create this world, then who did. but God not only created this world, also His prophecied numerous events ahead of time which were fullfilled in amazing accuracy and still the are men, who don't want to admit that He exists.

(Romans 1:18 to Romans 1:22) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodlyness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has shown it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen. being understood by the things which are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, niether were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

How great is God's amazing power as demonstrated in His creation of everything that exists. To deny Him the glory for all that He has done is surely to not fear His judgement for denying His word so plainly expressed in the bible which is His word, particularly when He declares that His word is truth!
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,304
76
✟363,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
So they are similar genetic expressions driving the organization of similar tissues, like I said.

No. You've confused homology and analogy, again. This is how we find "very good evidence" for common descent among fossils, as your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise notes.

Homology is the same genes for very dissimilar structures. Analogy is very different genes for similar structures. As you know, genetic similarity is evidence of common descent, which we can check by looking at the genes of organisms of known descent. That is homology. Like humans and whales.

Analogy is "looks similar" but has genetically different ancestry. Like bats and pterosaurs.

Human and Octopus eyes are structurally very similar and even driven by similar genetic expression.

No. That's a common misconception. There are some similar genes, but the homeobox genes for octopus eyes and vertebrate eyes are very different. In fact, they aren't even developed from the same embryonic layers. The retina of vertebrates is actually part of the brain, while the cephalopod eye is formed from ectoderm.

Integrative and Comparative Biology, Volume 55, Issue 6, December 2015, Pages 1070–1083
Molecular Evidence for Convergence and Parallelism in Evolution of Complex Brains of Cephalopod Molluscs: Insights from Visual Systems
Abstract

Coleoid cephalopods show remarkable evolutionary convergence with vertebrates in their neural organization, including (1) eyes and visual system with optic lobes, (2) specialized parts of the brain controlling learning and memory, such as vertical lobes, and (3) unique vasculature supporting such complexity of the central nervous system. We performed deep sequencing of eye transcriptomes of pygmy squids ( Idiosepius paradoxus ) and chambered nautiluses ( Nautilus pompilius ) to decipher the molecular basis of convergent evolution in cephalopods. RNA-seq was complemented by in situ hybridization to localize the expression of selected genes. We found three types of genomic innovations in the evolution of complex brains: (1) recruitment of novel genes into morphogenetic pathways, (2) recombination of various coding and regulatory regions of different genes, often called “evolutionary tinkering” or “co-option”, and (3) duplication and divergence of genes. Massive recruitment of novel genes occurred in the evolution of the “camera” eye from nautilus’ “pinhole” eye. We also showed that the type-2 co-option of transcription factors played important roles in the evolution of the lens and visual neurons. In summary, the cephalopod convergent morphological evolution of the camera eyes was driven by a mosaic of all types of gene recruitments. In addition, our analysis revealed unexpected variations of squids’ opsins, retinochromes, and arrestins, providing more detailed information, valuable for further research on intra-ocular and extra-ocular photoreception of the cephalopods.

Oops, but that doesn’t make sense because those Vertebrae and Mollusca would have diverged from each other long before each group developed such an advanced organ… so they couldn’t have derived their eyes from a common ancestor.

And now you realize that they didn't. In fact, all the stages of cephlopod eyes still exist in various members of the mollusk phylum. Would you like to learn about that?

Not loaded with enough unnecessary Evolution-jargon for your taste?

Unfortunately, the actual data is sometimes complex and yes, with a lot of specialized terms used by biologists. It's hard for laymen to read much of it. I wish I knew a way to make some of this simpler for you.

The crux of Evolution is what version of its story seems most palatable.

Rather, that's how creationism works. Notice your need to confuse homology and analogy.

For all evolutionists know (and some quietly admit this in the literature) … similar genetic/anatomic expressions could have evolved independently to much higher degree than is currently understood.

But you can't find any examples? I think I know why. Show us any scientific journal that has an article claiming that vertebrate and mollusk eyes are homologous. What have you got?

The wings of pterosaurs and wings of bats are analogous; they are very similar, but are derived from different tissues.

I see, so they are dissimilar tissue structures,

No, the structures are quite similar, made of skin, bones, and muscles. The structures are very similar.

and thus have dissimilar genetic expressions

They are derived from different parts of the vertebrate form. Even though they look very similar, they evolved from different structures. Hence analogous. Human arms and horse forelegs look very different, but are composed of the same structures, just evolved in a different way. Hence homologous. I don't see any way to make it simpler for you. What do you not understand about the difference?

"Homologous" and "analogous" are well-defined and testable.

This isn’t really true at all.

See above. Not hard at all. What do you not get about it?

Character traits once identified as homologous are routinely redefined as homoplasy (convergently or independently evolved )

There's an interesting case in the evolution of birds and dinosaurs, having to do with which digit was lost in birds. Sometimes, the details are tough to tease out. Which is why I used some easy-to-see examples of obvious homology and analogy.

The Evolution story just isn't true. It was written by men for the pride of men. The God of Israel has plainly revealed to us why billions of animals were buried all over the earth. We don't want to see it because it reminds us of the world Judgment before and the world Judgment to come. As the Lord and God, the King of Kings spoke himself: "The Days of Noah" which are coming upon us again at the end. - Matthew 24:37

In my experience, YE creationists are overly confident either out of ignorance or because of a religious zeal to promote their new doctrines; usually a combination of both. Which is kinda what you're showing us here.

The truth is, your doctrines are not found in the Bible, but are in the inventions of men, who were not satisfied with scripture as it is. Fortunately, it won't affect your salvation unless you make an idol of them and insist every Christian must believe these man-made ideas.

Jesus is Lord and Savior.

It's good that you admit it. Why not just accept it His way, then?








 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No. That's a common misconception. There are some similar genes, but the homeobox genes for octopus eyes and vertebrate eyes are very different. In fact, they aren't even developed from the same embryonic layers. The retina of vertebrates is actually part of the brain, while the cephalopod eye is formed from ectoderm.

Very good, we understand that vertebrates and invertebrates are quite distinct animal types. But you're still missing the point: Apparent signals of homology are ignored when they contradict a preferred narrative. Humans and Octopi are obviously extremely different from each other in many obvious ways and so a digestible Evolution story must clearly reflect those apparent differences. Thus a homology that isn't supposed to exist between groups can be relocated to a "deep homology" in order to explain away unexpected congruence.

"...the term 'deep homology' was coined, in recognition of the remarkably conserved gene expression during the development of certain animal structures that would not be considered homologous by previous strict definitions. At its core, it can help to formulate an understanding of deeper layers of ontogenetic conservation for anatomical features that lack any clear phylogenetic continuity." Deep homology in the age of next-generation sequencing - PubMed (nih.gov)

You don't even know if such homology exists, much less how to positively identify it between such distinct animal groups.


Unfortunately, the actual data is sometimes complex and yes, with a lot of specialized terms used by biologists. It's hard for laymen to read much of it.

and also hard for evolutionists to understand what they're reading

It's good that you admit it. Why not just accept it His way, then?

Is that the way where we deny God's works and claim that Jesus was confused about history?

No thanks. I'll stick with His Word.

By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
and by the breath of his mouth all their host.
He gathers the waters of the sea as a heap;
he puts the deeps in storehouses.

Let all the earth fear the Lord;
let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him!
For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm.


- Psalm 33:6-9
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torah Keeper
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,304
76
✟363,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The Barbarian said:
No. That's a common misconception. There are some similar genes, but the homeobox genes for octopus eyes and vertebrate eyes are very different. In fact, they aren't even developed from the same embryonic layers. The retina of vertebrates is actually part of the brain, while the cephalopod eye is formed from ectoderm.

Very good, we understand that vertebrates and invertebrates are quite distinct animal types.

But the question is whether or not you've figured out the difference between analogous and homologous organs. Let's see how you're doing...

Apparent signals of homology are ignored when they contradict a preferred narrative.

But I've shown you several cases, and you seem unable to show that your assumption is correct.

Thus a homology that isn't supposed to exist between groups can be relocated to a "deep homology" in order to explain away unexpected congruence.

I'm just showing you that cephalopods and vertebrate eye are not homologous. They don't even come from same embryonic layers. They are (to use the creationist jargon) "similar." But as you have learned, they come about in entirely different ways. Hence, because our retinas are really exvaginations of brain tissue, they are "backwards", which causes us some problems like lowered acuity and a "blind spot." Cephalopods have a retina evolved from ectoderm, and have no such issues.

You don't even know if such homology exists, much less how to positively identify it between such distinct animal groups.

Sorry, you're wrong about that, too:

Pax6 is critical for light detection in all triploblasts. It has an primitive form in cnidarians, so it predates the common ancestor of mollusks and vertebrates. So there it is. The expression of this and other genes required for light detection in cephalopods and vertebrates is very different, but they have a common basis. Hence the "deep homology" of a key homeobox gene for light detection, but analogous eyes that did not evolve in the same way for the two groups.

Of course, there is also a deep homology between bats and pterosaurs in the sense of the homeobox genes that govern forelimbs, even if the wings of each of these are analogous, having been produced from different structures.

Yes, I get that this is difficult; I've simplified it as much as I can. Sorry.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Barbarian said:
But the question is whether or not you've figured out the difference between analogous and homologous organs.

You still seem confused that homology is something real and not just guesswork.

nervousSystemsEvolvedTwice1.png



I’d like you meditate on the following statement:

“Either the common ancestor of all animals had a nervous system and neurons were lost twice in placozoa and sponges or the nervous system evolved twice…”

When studying different animal types, evolutionists can not even say whether or not their nervous system is homologous or not. As much similarity as they see, there is enough incongruence that they have to suggest that perhaps the nervous system evolved twice.

Of course, in your mind, they are just “teasing out” the finer details.

Complex Homology and the Evolution of Nervous Systems (utexas.edu)
Liebeskind 2015

Ontogenetic origin and morphogenetic gene networks are often considered key evidence for homology. It is becoming clear, however, that the relationship between morphogenes and the characters they encode is complex. For instance, many morphogenes and signaling pathways associated with animal development were present in the unicellular ancestor of choanoflagellates and animals. Interestingly, the developmental toolkit of ctenophores more closely resembles that of sponges, while that of placozoans more closely resembles cnidarians and bilaterians.

The embryological origin of neurons is also more plastic than previously appreciated. Although most nervous systems are ectodermally derived, neurons originate from non-ectodermal precursors in several species, including hydrozoan cnidarians and echinoderms, suggesting that non-ectodermal neurons might have evolved at least twice. Thus even the ontogeny of neurons is a plastic character that cannot be used as an unqualified test of homology without comparative and molecular analysis. No single gene yet found is a perfect marker of nervous systems and even gene networks cannot be used to assess homologous phenotypes without further characterization due to the possibility of independent recruitment into convergent phenotypes, or ‘deep homology’. Perhaps the discovery of more ctenophore- and sponge-specific developmental networks will help reveal the deep roots of neural development.





Animal Phylogeny and Its Evolutionary Implications (harvard.edu)
Dunn 2014

Recent progress in the field of animal phylogeny has important implications for our understanding of the evolution of development, morphology, genomes, and other characters. A remarkable pattern emerges—there is far more homoplasy for all these characters than had previously been anticipated, even among many complex characters such as segmentation and nervous systems.

Broad sampling of genomic, morphological, and functional data across animals is critical to understanding animal evolution because, along with a well-resolved animal phylogeny, it allows us to reconstruct the series of evolutionary changes that led to the diversity of animals. The extensive homoplasy that is now apparent in the animal tree indicates that many animals that are simple in some respects, such as nervous system structure or cell number, are complex in other respects, such as genome composition. The entirely artificial construct of higher and lower animals is long past its useful sell-by date. As this review shows, many traits once thought to be highly conserved are quite variable across different body plans in the animal tree.






bats1.png



Here is a simple example of bats. And I can sum up the argument in one question. If evolutionists cannot figure out whether or not bat wings (major anatomical structures for which we have tons of comparative data for) are homologous or independently evolved in multiple lineages… what gives you the idea that homology can be positively identified at all?

Did you know evolutionists are just purely guessing when they show you those pictures of mammal limb similarities and pretend it is evidence that we share a common ancestor?


The evolution of flight in bats: a novel hypothesis - Anderson - 2020
We present the interdigital webbing hypothesis: the ancestral bat exhibited interdigital webbing prior to powered flight ability, and the Yangochiroptera, Pteropodidae, and Rhinolophoidea evolved into their current forms along parallel trajectories from this common ancestor. Thus, we suggest that powered flight may have evolved multiple times within the Chiroptera and that similarity in wing morphology in different lineages is driven by convergence from a common ancestor with interdigital webbing.

Introducing the interdigital webbing hypothesis
Given the clear evidence of morphological, behavioural and phylogenetic distinctions between the Pteropodidae, Yangochiroptera, and Rhinolophoidea, it is possible and perhaps likely that these three groups developed their respective flight and echolocation abilities independently from one another. The weakness of this idea is that, while each group differs in their echolocation characteristics, they all apparently share the same derived flight adaptations. If they had all evolved independently, this would mean proposing the convergent evolution of the highly specialised dactylopatagium wing arrangement in three different groups; but what if, contradictory to the gliding model, the dactylopatagium was present in the common ancestor in the form of interdigital webbing, much like the proposed actinopatagium of proto-pterosaurs

Drawing on comparisons from the vertebrates, and in the light of the recently published description of the membrane-winged dinosaur Ambopteryx longibrachium, this interdigital webbing hypothesis provides a biologically satisfying narrative for the evolution of flight in bats, from arboreal mammals to the fastest-flying vertebrates that we know of.”


Reflect on this phrase: "provides a biologically satisfying narrative"

Does this sound more like something is being positively identified, or more like people tossing out best guesses? If homology were actually identifiable, you wouldn’t run into these kinds of issues, plain and simple. It’s just guesswork, routinely contradicted later on.

If you actually study the literature, this is no secret. Evolutionists are comparing the traits of different animal types and trying to come up with the most satisfying story, or the image of animal evolution that seems the most resolved. You can’t tell a story without some kind of plot and that’s what evolutionists are trying to do, come up with a plot that reads the easiest, with the least amount of plotholes. One is simply mistaken if they believe evolutionists are actually identifying these things.

Another way of thinking about homology is not as a definitive identification, (which it clearly is not), but instead *homology is the absence of the need to appeal to convergent evolution* (or non-derived, independent evolution of traits) … Since evolutionists’ primary mission is to organize life into phylogenies or groups depicting a linear progression via common ancestry, they are constantly motivated to assign as much homology as possible, and then defer to all sorts of alternate explanations to patch up any contradictions.



Of course, there is also a deep homology between bats and pterosaurs in the sense of the homeobox genes that govern forelimbs, even if the wings of each of these are analogous, having been produced from different structures.


What you’ll notice about evolution is that whenever a problem arises, the proposed solution is always pushed “deep” … The reason for this is that the "deeper" the event is, or the more it is pushed back into supposed deep-time, the more freedom evolutionists have to play with imaginary data, purely imaginary common ancestors, and purely imaginary events. This is convenient because here in imaginary deep-time with imaginary common ancestors, you don't have to worry about testing your explanations against actual data. And that is Evolution in a nut-shell: imagined common ancestors that never existed... Once the imagination becomes the storehouse for mining one’s explanations, then you’re just practicing creative storytelling, which is what Evolution is.



Let all the earth fear the Lord;
let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him!
For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm.

The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing;
he frustrates the plans of the peoples.
The counsel of the Lord stands forever,
the plans of his heart to all generations.
Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord,
the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!


- Psalm 33:8-12

We want God to be distant and uninvolved in this world so that we can seize the kingdom here for ourselves... live the way we want, make wealth and status for ourselves, serve our lusts... The Evolution creation story is a fundamental denial of God's sovereignty and immediate command and presence over the Creation. But more importantly, it is a denial of God's Judgment. (The Fall and the worldwide Flood.) Mankind hates to be reminded of these things. The creation mythology of Evolution serves society's demand to have these stumblingblocks removed and seek out our own humanistic destinies.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,304
76
✟363,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You still seem confused that homology is something real and not just guesswork.

As you learned, it's testable and can be confirmed. For example, it's not hard to show that bones in our middle ear are homologous with the jawbones of reptiles. Would you like to see how we know that?

You still seem confused by the fact that while we know many things about homology, we don't know everything. And you seem to have made my argument for me here:

The entirely artificial construct of higher and lower animals is long past its useful sell-by date. As this review shows, many traits once thought to be highly conserved are quite variable across different body plans in the animal tree.

I'm guessing that you put that up because you still aren't clear as to the difference between homology and analogy.

BTW, the evolution of the nervous system was revised because of genetic data...

Nature. 2014 Jun 5; 510(7503): 109–114.
The Ctenophore Genome and the Evolutionary Origins of Neural Systems
Here, we present the draft genome of Pleurobrachia bachei, Pacific sea gooseberry, together with ten other ctenophore transcriptomes and show that they are remarkably distinct from other animal genomes in their content of neurogenic, immune and developmental genes. Our integrative analyses place Ctenophora as the earliest lineage within Metazoa. This hypothesis is supported by comparative analysis of multiple gene families, including the apparent absence of HOX genes, canonical microRNA machinery, and reduced immune complement in ctenophores. Although two distinct nervous systems are well-recognized in ctenophores, many bilaterian neuron-specific genes and genes of “classical” neurotransmitter pathways either are absent or, if present, are not expressed in neurons. Our metabolomic and physiological data are consistent with the hypothesis that ctenophore neural systems, and possibly muscle specification, evolved independently from those in other animals.

The Ctenophore Genome and the Evolutionary Origins of Neural Systems

It's not a surprise. Eyes evolved independently several times in bilaterans, but all are dependent on the Pax6 homeobox gene. As you learned, analogous organs like bat and pterosaur wings evolved independently, but depend on genes for skeleton, muscles, and so on.

And we don't have much of a fossil record for bats. But a creationist victory lap is probably premature. You see, when I was an undergraduate, we lacked fossil transitionals for:
Humans from apes
Mammals from reptiles
Ants from wasps
Turtles from anapsids
Frogs from salamanders
Whales from land ungulates
(long list; more if you want to see more)

And now, we have all of those, which your fellow YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise says are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Would you like to see that, again?
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
As you learned, it's testable and can be confirmed. For example, it's not hard to show that bones in our middle ear are homologous with the jawbones of reptiles. Would you like to see how we know that?

You continue to confuse assumptions with confirmation. Homology is "confirmed" right up to the point that evolutionists decide they need to find a 'more parsimonious' story. I could continue to show you a hundred more examples from the literature where evolutionists are openly revising the status of animal character traits that were previously classified as homology. (Homology becoming non-homology, then perhaps becoming homology again later on...) It won't matter. You are clearly settled in your thinking here.


BTW, the evolution of the nervous system was revised because of genetic data...

Nature. 2014 Jun 5; 510(7503): 109–114.
The Ctenophore Genome and the Evolutionary Origins of Neural Systems
Here, we present the draft genome of Pleurobrachia bachei, Pacific sea gooseberry, together with ten other ctenophore transcriptomes and show that they are remarkably distinct from other animal genomes in their content of neurogenic, immune and developmental genes. Our integrative analyses place Ctenophora as the earliest lineage within Metazoa. This hypothesis is supported by comparative analysis of multiple gene families, including the apparent absence of HOX genes, canonical microRNA machinery, and reduced immune complement in ctenophores. Although two distinct nervous systems are well-recognized in ctenophores, many bilaterian neuron-specific genes and genes of “classical” neurotransmitter pathways either are absent or, if present, are not expressed in neurons. Our metabolomic and physiological data are consistent with the hypothesis that ctenophore neural systems, and possibly muscle specification, evolved independently from those in other animals.

The Ctenophore Genome and the Evolutionary Origins of Neural Systems

It's not a surprise. Eyes evolved independently several times in bilaterans, but all are dependent on the Pax6 homeobox gene.

Like I mentioned, when there are narrative problems, evolutionist just push the problem deeper into imaginary time. Here they pushed it all the way back to the imaginary origin of the very first animals.

Even in this paper you linked, in the discussion section, the authors admit their conclusion is merely a best guess scenario, but as I mentioned above, you mistakenly believe something is being definitely confirmed.

"The alternative “single-origin-hypothesis”, where the common ancestor of all metazoans had a nervous system with complex molecular and transmitter organization including all classical cnidarian/bilaterian transmitters and neurogenic genes, as a less parsimonious scenario."

The zealous over-confidence of evolutionists arguing on internet forums is almost never reflected in the actual literature. I learned this a long time ago.

Ultimately it's not really about data and science, it's about society's demand for an evolutionary story. If people lose Evolution, they lose all of their perceived authority over their lives and have to give all the glory back to the Creator.


And we don't have much of a fossil record for bats. But a creationist victory lap is probably premature.

Thinking that morphology from fossils would conclusively prove anything is premature. It is often these features that are the most malleable in interpretation. A little nub or shape of bone can just as easily be interpreted as the result of inheritance or independent convergence, depending on which story evolutionists want to run with.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,304
76
✟363,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
As you learned, it's testable and can be confirmed. For example, it's not hard to show that bones in our middle ear are homologous with the jawbones of reptiles. Would you like to see how we know that?

Homology is "confirmed" right up to the point that evolutionists decide they need to find a 'more parsimonious' story.

You continue to confuse confirmed predictions with assumptions. As I pointed out, some facts led to the prediction:
1. mammals have fewer bones in their lower jaws and more bones in their middle ears than reptiles do.
2. reptiles use their jaws to transmit sound to the middle ear.
3. embryology of mammals (such as the oposssum)has shown the movement of bones from the jaw to the middle ear during development.

Based on this evidence, it was hypothesized that a reptilian jawbone evolved to a mammalian ear bone.

Then, over time, we found and entire series of mammal-like reptiles, showing the transition. We even found one fossil (Diarthrognathus) which has both the mammalian and reptilian jaw joints, shooting down the creationist argument that there would be no way to have an intermediate condition.

Your assumptions were based on not knowing much about the issue, and so misled you once again.

Would you like me to show you some of that evidence?

I could continue to show you a hundred more examples...

It's always possible to make mistakes. In this case, you assumed that there was no evidence for the demonstration that homology (which is not the same as evolution) showed how mammals evolved from reptiles. As you were shown earlier, homology is not evolution, but merely evidence for evolution. Even honest and knowledgeable YE creationists like Kurt Wise and others admit this fact.

BTW, the evolution of the nervous system was revised because of genetic data...

Like I mentioned, when there are narrative problems, evolutionist just push the problem deeper into imaginary time.

That's the issue for you. You see that scientists revise their ideas when new evidence (in this case genetic data) shows a need to to do it. It must seem like cheating to creationists, who try to bend the facts to fit their assumptions.

But as you demonstrate, this isn't about evidence or reason for you. You are clearly settled in your thinking here.

Even in this paper you linked, in the discussion section, the authors admit their conclusion is merely a best guess scenario, but as I mentioned above, you mistakenly believe something is being definitely confirmed.

You're definitely a creationist. I never said that; you just made it up to make your case sound more convincing.

Ultimately it's not really about data and science,

Not for most creationists, it's not. But as you have just learned, that's how it works in science.

If people lose Evolution, they lose all of their perceived authority over their lives and have to give all the glory back to the Creator.

It's odd then, that Darwin gave God the credit for creating life. If you bothered to actually learn what scientists think, you might be less likely to be embarrassed when your assumptions are exposed.

Thinking that morphology from fossils would conclusively prove anything is premature. It is often these features that are the most malleable in interpretation. A little nub or shape of bone can just as easily be interpreted as the result of inheritance or independent convergence, depending on which story evolutionists want to run with.

If you think so, you've never studied comparative anatomy. Often, there can be complications,such as the issue of which fingers were lost in the evolution of birds. Initially, the data suggested that birds evolved from thecodonts, but a look at homeobox genes shows that the loss was from a dinosauran condition.

However, it is generally much easier to reduce the outer fingers than the more central ones, as they appear later in development. Thus the first finger is reduced ("thumbs down") instead of the fourth finger, leaving an anterior area open for the early precursors of the other fingers to grow into. This would lead those developing fingers to encounter an anterior-like Sonic Hedgehog concentration and then to develop accordingly—more like I, II, and III.

"This mechanism explains why the fingers of Archaeopteryx and modern birds have the shapes of the anterior fingers (I, II, III), even though they are actually the central fingers (II, III, IV). At the same time, this hypothesis is consistent with the fossil findings and matches the current developmental genetics results," says Brian Metscher of the Department of Theoretical Biology at the University of Vienna.
https://phys.org/news/2014-01-fingers-feathered-friends-results-evolution.html
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,304
76
✟363,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You need to ask, "am I living abundantly?

Absent honesty, there is no abundant life.

John 10:9 I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved: and he shall go in, and go out, and shall find pastures. [10] The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly.

Seek the truth, and you'll never be far from Him.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
1. mammals have fewer bones in their lower jaws and more bones in their middle ears than reptiles do.
2. reptiles use their jaws to transmit sound to the middle ear.
3. embryology of mammals (such as the oposssum)has shown the movement of bones from the jaw to the middle ear during development.

Based on this evidence, it was hypothesized that a reptilian jawbone evolved to a mammalian ear bone.

It's not evidence. You're just looking at things and saying evolution did it.

The exact same data could be interpreted as independent adaptations in distinct animal lineages. The explanation for this would be that natural selection pressures drove the convergent migration of jaw to ear anatomy. In other words, these anatomies exist because they help the animal survive. Reptiles evolving into Mammals is a satisfyingly simple linear story, so you go with that narrative... Yet if the animal types appeared coincident with each other the story would flip to the aforementioned.


That's the issue for you. You see that scientists revise their ideas when new evidence (in this case genetic data) shows a need to to do it. It must seem like cheating to creationists, who try to bend the facts to fit their assumptions.

I don't think it's cheating. Young-Earth creationists do the same thing. They are constantly updating their Flood models as new data comes in. It is the evolutionists that are so blind that they cannot see how the data must always pass through their own ideological gauntlet. Methodological naturalism projected onto the history of the world.



It's odd then, that Darwin gave God the credit for creating life.

He, like many students of the enlightenment, gave credit to the deistic god that is nothing resembling the character of the God of Israel. Darwin's god created man through billions of years of violent death and decay. The God of Israel created man in a perfect eden, and death only came as a result of the first created man rejecting God's word and seeking his own wisdom over that of his Creator's. Darwin's god lit an invisible spark to promote life, (just as the god of 21st century evolutionists snapped his fingers to set off the big-bang), but beyond those rare intrusions into nature has not intervened in creation in any noticeable way. But that is not the God of Israel. Darwin's god is invisible but the God of Israel has intervened in stunning ways throughout history. (For example, making the Sun and moon stand still for a day, the plagues upon Egypt, or causing a devastating world-wide flood and sparing only eight humans to repopulate the earth...) Just as he will in the future judgment and the day of the Lord's return.

Darwin's god and the God written of in the pages of the bible are essentially different gods.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,304
76
✟363,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
1. mammals have fewer bones in their lower jaws and more bones in their middle ears than reptiles do.
2. reptiles use their jaws to transmit sound to the middle ear.
3. embryology of mammals (such as the oposssum)has shown the movement of bones from the jaw to the middle ear during development.

Based on this evidence, it was hypothesized that a reptilian jawbone evolved to a mammalian ear bone.

It's not evidence.

All of those are demonstrable facts. Would you like me to show you? Perhaps you don't know what "evidence" means. What do you think it means?

You're just looking at things and denying that they exist.

The exact same data could be interpreted as independent adaptations in distinct animal lineages.

Nope. If that were true, there would no conversion of the articular bone of the embryonic jaw, into the malleus of the mature fetus middle ear:

Mammal%2Bmiddle%2Bear%2Bevolution.tiff

In other words, these anatomies exist because they help the animal survive.

Explain to us how moving a jaw bone to the ear helps a mammal survive, but isn't helpful for a reptile. You're tossing out "just so"stories in an attempt to cover up the evidence.

Reptiles evolving into Mammals is a satisfyingly simple linear story

I guess it might seem so, if you didn't know anything about it. Everything is simple, to someone ignorant of the process. It's a rather complex involved process. It's not just jaws and ears. There's a lot more to understand.

Yet if the animal types appeared coincident with each other the story would flip to the aforementioned.

As your fellow YE creationist admits, the fact that these appear in an orderly sequence over time, makes it "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

That's the issue for you. You see that scientists revise their ideas when new evidence (in this case genetic data) shows a need to to do it. It must seem like cheating to creationists, who try to bend the facts to fit their assumptions.

Young-Earth creationists do the same thing.

Rarely, and then only under extreme pressure. One example is the recent admission by some YE creationists that new species, genera, and families evolve, er "develop" from earlier ones. This occurred when they realized that they had to find a way to fit all animals on the Ark, and that they had to suppose a limited number of "kinds" from which all others evolved, er "developed."

Creationists are blind to the fact that all evidence must be processed and bent if it is to be fit into their ideological gauntlet.

It's odd then, that Darwin gave God the credit for creating life.

He, like many students of the enlightenment, gave credit to the deistic god

Perhaps you don't know what "deism" means. It doesn't mean "created living things." That's not what they think.

Darwin's god created man through billions of years of violent death and decay.

You're wrong there, too. He breathed a living soul into man directly. Our bodies are made naturally, like those of other animals. But our souls are given directly by God. This obvious truth seems extremely difficult for creationists to accept.

but beyond those rare intrusions into nature has not intervened in creation in any noticeable way.

I've often thought that YE creationists secretly believed that, but I don't often hear them admit it.

The YE creationists' god and the God written of in the pages of the bible are essentially different gods.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Nope. If that were true, there would no conversion of the articular bone of the embryonic jaw, into the malleus of the mature fetus middle ear:

You are imagining a world where Evolution provides heuristic insight into embryonic development. It does not. (actually it is one of the more controversial sub-fields of the theory) ... Though it makes a good story with pictures, it's not even clear why such a jaw/ear conversion would be evolutionarily preserved in a developing embryo over millions of years, instead of adopting a more streamlined morphological assembly, in which case the story would be that embryogenesis does not conserve such patterns. Simple.

Evolutionists used to tell the story that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", that developing embryos would mimic the embryonic stages of their animal ancestors. That was a really good story with great pictures until the data no longer supported it and Evolutionists had to find new stories to sell their creation story.

Even the process of embryogenesis itself is hypothesized to be convergent evolution (phylotypic hourglass model) ... The point being, all of this is ad-hoc, i.e. "what does the data look like and how can we fit that into a story of evolution?"
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,304
76
✟363,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You are imagining a world where Evolution provides heuristic insight into embryonic development.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. And you have it backwards. Embryology provides insight into the way organisms evolved.

Though it makes a good story with pictures, it's not even clear why such a jaw/ear conversion would be evolutionarily preserved in a developing embryo over millions of years, instead of adopting a more streamlined morphological assembly, in which case the story would be that embryogenesis does not conserve such patterns. Simple.

It seems simple to you, because you don't know much about genetics. Evolution produces nothing de novo; it always modifies something already there. Hence, the prediction of biologists that the articular bone became reduced and displaced to the (nearby) middle ear is confirmed by the discovery of many transitional forms in the fossil record, by homeobox genes, and by embryology, which shows the reptilian form in early mammalian development, and other evidence.

Dev. Biology 1997 May 15;185(2):165-84
Role of the Dlx homeobox genes in proximodistal patterning of the branchial arches: mutations of Dlx-1, Dlx-2, and Dlx-1 and -2 alter morphogenesis of proximal skeletal and soft tissue structures derived from the first and second arches
Abstract


The Dlx homeobox gene family is expressed in a complex pattern within the embryonic craniofacial ectoderm and ectomesenchyme. A previous study established that Dlx-2 is essential for development of proximal regions of the murine first and second branchial arches. Here we describe the craniofacial phenotype of mice with mutations in Dlx-1 and Dlx-1 and -2. The skeletal and soft tissue analyses of mice with Dlx-1 and Dlx-1 and -2 mutations provide additional evidence that the Dlx genes regulate proximodistal patterning of the branchial arches. This analysis also elucidates distinct and overlapping roles for Dlx-1 and Dlx-2 in craniofacial development. Furthermore, mice lacking both Dlx-1 and -2 have unique abnormalities, including the absence of maxillary molars. Dlx-1 and -2 are expressed in the proximal and distal first and second arches, yet only the proximal regions are abnormal. The nested expression patterns of Dlx-1, -2, -3, -5, and -6 provide evidence for a model that predicts the region-specific requirements for each gene. Finally, the Dlx-2 and Dlx-1 and -2 mutants have ectopic skull components that resemble bones and cartilages found in phylogenetically more primitive vertebrates.


Now, the concordance of all the evidence from several independent sources is compelling. But what's more compelling is that we don't see such evidence where the theory says it shouldn't be. We don't see vertical fins on whales or incipient horns on primates and so on.

Even vertebrate jaws themselves are formed early on as branchial arches, complete with openings as we see it jawless fishes. Like the articular bone in mammalian embryos, it doesn't mean we become fish or reptiles at some point. We never have gills or gill slits because the same tissues in mammals form jaw and ear bones. It merely means that our development is constrained by that which went on before.

Evolutionists used to tell the story that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", that developing embryos would mimic the embryonic stages of their animal ancestors.

And now you know better. You see, the stories that ignorant people told you are merely their confabulations of the idea, which is more complicated and interesting than the "we become fish, then reptiles then mammals" stories peddled by creationists. Even Haeckel, who got much of it wrong, didn't say that.

Everything is simple, if you don't know about it. Why not learn for yourself? What have you got to lose, but your illusions?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0