Previous posts have shown how selective the evolutionary community is in their use of homology in support of Darwinian relationships via macroevolution. They generally avoid telling students that many holmologous parts actually are controlled by different genes. Or that each basic kind, be it reptile, amphibian, or mammal, etc. actually follows different patterns in their embryological development. They also fail to mention many of the examples where unrelated animals share striking homology, which they label convergent evolution or analogous similarity. Another interesting problem for using homology as proof of ancestry is called divergent homolgy. Divergent is the term used for animals that they believe are related through close evolutionary history but who have morphological differences that defy evolutionary explanation. One example of this is found in the great variations that exist in shrimp eyes. Shrimp eyes are not only very complex but also extremely variant in design. A evolutionary biologist named Michael Land studied the eyes of shrimp and noticed that one kind had a very complex mirror system and the other a lens cylinder system. He commented, “Both are successful and very sophisticated image-forming devices, but I cannot imagine an intermediate form [or common ancestral type] that would work at all.” [1} In other words he felt there was no way to explain how such divergent eye forms could possibly exist in terms of evolutionary relationship. That would be particularly true in the face of a total lack of observable evidence for macroevolution. According to Spetner, for macroevolution to work, two conditions must be fulfilled, (1), the mutations must be part of a long series in which the mutation in each step is adaptive, and (2). the mutations must, at least on the average, add a little information to the genome.[note: those of you who have taken an elementary course in biology will probably have heard macroevolution defined differently,i.e., if enough microevolution occurs over time that the new population cannot interbreed with the parent population, then macro evolution has occurred. Let me point out that the inability to breed with the parent population is an easy result of information loss, not gain. Spetners definition is directed toward explaining what real Darwinian theory demands, information gain, from no eye to eye, scale to feather, etc.] According to Dr. Lee Spetner Phd. , no mutation has ever been observed to fill or satisfy these conditions.  In fact as he was studying the shrimp, the evolutionary biologist Michael Land went on to say he was, “trying not to come to the conclusion that these eyes had been put there by God to confuse scientists.” Or at least to those scientists whe are trained to view all the data in a cvolutionary framework. For more on this subject read the article at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch1-homology.asp  Land, Michael, Nature as an Optical Engineer, New Scientist, October 4, 1979.  Spetner, Lee, Not by Chance, the Judaica Press, p106, 1998
COPY RIGHT/PERMISSIONSMark Hodges and Notmanynoble Blog, 2009-2010. Unauthorized use of this material is prohibited. THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO POSTS AND PAGES WRITTEN FOR APOLOGETIC PURPOSES, FEEL FREE TO USE THESE AT WILL, THATS WHAT THEY'RE HERE FOR, excerpts from personal vignettes may be used, provided credit is given to author and blog with appropriate direction to the original content.
1988 San Antonio Rescue
- 32,593 views
- Author Bio
- Books Available
- Carbon Datings Shakey Foundations
- Classical Darwinism; Natural Selection
- Haeckel’s Fraud and Homology
- Homology Without Ancestry
- Is God Unfair?
- Lyell’s Geology; short version
- Lyell’s Geology; the longer version
- Modern Day Prophets?
- Of Mice and Men; DNA Sequences Compared
- Radio-isotope Dating; Questions and Answers
- Radiometric Dating
- Scientific Censure of the Fossil Record
- Spontaneous Generation
- The Ancient Irish Kings
- The Anglo-Saxon Kings
- The Blood of the Prophet
- The German Higher Critics: How Rational Were They?
- The Historical Roots of Modern Science
- The IPCC’s Ice Core Data Reviewed
- The Logical Nonsequitur of Roe vs Wade
- The Science vs. Religion Strawman
- The Smithsonian Rebukes the Nat’l Geographic
- The Truth About Scientific Consensus
- The Welsh Chronicles
- The Worlds Bloodiest Religion
- Three Ways to Destroy a Nation
- Was America formed to be a Secular Non-theistic Nation