The fallacy of the homology argument
The argument that homology refutes creation, and proves evolution is [nearly] as old as it is fallacious. Homology in no way proves descent from a common ancestor. The argument isn't scientific, it's religious and rhetorical.
Let's take a look at a couple forms of the argument (claim would be more accurate).
Quotes and comments;
1. "From a purely practical point of view, it is incomprehensible that a turtle should swim, a horse run, a person write, and a bird or bat fly with structures built of the same bones. An engineer could design better limbs in each case. But if it is accepted that all of these skeletons inherited their structures from a common ancestor and became modified only as they adapted to different ways of life, the similarity of their structures makes sense. F. Ayala [Encyclopedia Britannica]
2. "What could be more curious," asks Darwin, "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 the same bones, in the same relative positions?" Darwin [Origins]
'It would be "hopeless," Darwin warns, to explain this pattern of similarity by functional utility...' (Let me add in passing that it's much like Darwin to try and discourage any investigation of subjects that could refute or undermine his theory.)
- Darwin conveniently ignores mathematics in all this. As we know, we can find mathematical patterns everywhere in natural world. (e.g. the Fibonacci ratio can be found in all manner of things.) I don't hear any modern day Darwin calling that curious and incomprehensible. Mathematical patterns and ratios can be found almost everywhere in creation. (The Fibonacci sequence isn't the only mathematical ratio we see in 'nature'.) These patterns and ratios are the opposite of the randomness that evolutionary theory insists on.
- Ever the great rhetorician, Darwin ignores mathematics because it doesn't suit his argument. Origins for him is a debate; a debate to be won by any method, fair or foul. (i.e. if math can help you win over the audience use it, if you think it will hurt you, leave it out. I don't consider such an approach scholarly. But Darwin isn't interested in the truth, but in winning the debate. One can only wonder at the motivation of people who see life as a debate.
- DNA is composed of four 'letters' in various arrangements. Is that curious and incomprehensible? [This in no way proves evolution, but is evidence for creation. i.e. as only intelligence can create code.]
- all creatures are 'composed' largely of water. Is that curious and incomprehensible?
- the backbone (bones attached) of a salmon looks much like a tree with branches. Is that curious and incomprehensible?
- this is a poor argument, and it's not meant to illuminate the subject, but to deceive the ignorant with its 'blatant simplicity'.
Notes; Fibonacci; Wiki
- "Fibonacci sequences appear in biological settings,[34] in two consecutive Fibonacci numbers, such as branching in trees, arrangement of leaves on a stem, the fruitlets of a pineapple,[35] the flowering of artichoke, an uncurling fern and the arrangement of a pine cone.[36] In addition, numerous poorly substantiated claims of Fibonacci numbers or golden sections in nature are found in popular sources, e.g. relating to the breeding of rabbits, the spirals of shells, and the curve of waves[citation needed]. The Fibonacci numbers are also found in the family tree of honeybees."
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
