Divergent Homology in Darwinian Theory

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. [2] 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  [1] Land, Michael, Nature as an Optical Engineer, New Scientist, October 4, 1979. [2] Spetner, Lee, Not by Chance, the Judaica Press, p106, 1998


About notmanynoble

woodcutter from Washington State
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Divergent Homology in Darwinian Theory

  1. Greg says:

    Might I suggest you watch these videos from an introductory science class at a Christian university –

    It’s a good introduction to the basics.


    • notmanynoble says:

      Greg, thanks for the opportunity, but I hate videos. However, I don’t need to watch a video on the basics of biology from a christian college, because I am taking a course in biology from a secular college. My guess is you took offense at Spetner’s definition of macro-evolution, having accepted the popular one of “if enough microevolultion takes place that the population can no longer breed with the original population, that is macroevolution”.However, a species can easily reach the point of not being able to breed without any gain in information. True Darwinian evolution demands an increase in information, non eye to eye, no leg to legs, etc., the definition given in evolutionary texts is just a dodge so they can ultimately claim microevolution is macro. You are more than welcome to point out all the things that I or Lee Spetner, a professor of physics who taught Biophysics and information theory at John Hopkins for 10 years [now thats authority for you] said wrong. Even before I took a course in biology from a college, I took a course from a person of real authority, called Moses, and really became enthused, I don’t know if you can get it in video form, but if you can, you should check it out. Moses explains how you can get life from dead matter without having to break the first law of biology, biogenesis. The fall helps explain how extensive microevolution leads to genetic drift and a loss of overall information ending in extinction and eventual death for a population. He explains why both living life forms and those found in the fossil record are found in discreet groups without intermediates. It is really an awesome book. Do they read that at your Christian College? I mean, sad to say, many Christian colleges these days prefer Dawkins and Darwin over Moses.

      PS, Greg, the guy who wrote the article at the link I posted is a Phd. in biology who wrote biology textbooks for the public school system for years, Gary Parker. I think he probably understands the basics. You should go to that link and read that and you can even contact him, if you want to argue with someone besides a woodcutter….lol


  2. Tom says:

    There are two main interpretations of information theory, Shannon and Kolmogorov, under each it is trivial to demonstrate how evolutionary mechanisms add “new information”;


    • notmanynoble says:

      Tom, thats great. However your dealing with a wood cutter. Why don’t you just explain to me in your own words how its possible to add an eye say, to a clam with out adding information to the DNA or how random errors to a tightly functioning machine can add more and more complex functioning parts. And then, out of tens of thousands of observed mutations send me 4 or 5 where such an addition has taken place in an orderly fashion with out loss of information somewhere else. Then you send those evidences to all the biology instructors across the country so the could show at least one to their students, I know my instructor would sure like to have one. In my life experience, random mistakes in information always leads to the breakdown of the information, not improvement. But no matter. If you want to go with Darwin you have to explain how dead matter formed itself into amazingly complex biological machines, where even one small mistake in the amino acid sequence could lead heart disease, bone marrow breakdown, on an on, and in doing so you will violate the first law of biology. As far as the information theory goes, if you have discovered a way to gain money by losing money you really shouldn’t be wasting your time talking to woodcutters. Besides, I am horribly biased, my main authority for biological theory is Moses, and he well explains how life can form with out violating the law of biogenesis as well as why all observed animals reproduce after their own kind, which in turn explains the discreet grouping we find in the fossil record. I don’t need Darwin or any other Greek explanation.
      Have a great day.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s