Rabbit Hunting with Evolutionists
The history of evolutionary homologies from Haeckel’s embryos to human/chimp DNA
Homology. The word simply means similarity, and is used in particular to describe similar structures or features in animals. We know that when we look at a group of family members that the similarity we see is usually due to relatedness. But anyone who has lived a few years knows that being similar in appearance isn’t necessarily proof of close or direct relationship, even among humans.
The same holds true for intricate products of design, like cars or computers. My youngest son has an Acer netbook while I have a Hp. They both look identical and are designed with almost identical hardware, but the homolgy isn’t due to a common ancestor, but rather common design.
Likewise, similarity exist between species that interbreed now or have in the recent past and that we know are closely related, such as the horse and zebra. Evolutionists point to such homologies as evidence not only of relationship between obviously related animals of the same basic kind, but as proof of evolutionary relationships between animals of different species or even of a different genus or family or order, etc.
Unfortunately, while such homologies, could be evidence of an alleged evolutionary relationship, they really can’t be used as proof of such. This is because just as among people and computers, homolgy can exist among creatures that are not thought to be closely related, even by evolutionists. The eyes of vertebrates, including the human eye, are extremely homologous with the eyes of squids and octopii, but obviously can’t be traced by a series of ancestors. The concentration of blood cells in humans is closer to frogs or fish than to some mammals, like the sheep. The morphology of the Tasmanian tiger (a marsupial) is almost identical to the dog family, but the homolgy doesn’t fit evolutionary theory.
This consistent similarity among animals that are not believed to have an evolutionary relationship is called convergent or analogous homology. Obviously if homology can exist between animals lacking any evolutionary relationship, then it cannot be used as proof of relationship. This “convergent” homology is so common that when a former curator of the British Museum of Nat’l History asked an audience of highly respected evolutionists, “just what one thing do you know about evolution?”, the answer was, “convergent evolution is everywhere.” (Parker,Creation: Facts of Life). Obviously it is logically wrong to insist that similar looking features, or behavior or genetics is evidence of evolution, since it is found extensively outside of related animals, but you will look in vain to find this problem or convergent homology even mentioned in most textbooks.
Nor is this the only problem with the inference that similarity means evolutionary relationship. As we shall see, almost all of the homologies used as evidence for evolution in the past, have crumbled. Many of the similar looking structures shown in textbooks have turned out to be controlled by different gene structures, so couldn’t have been passed down by a common ancestor. Then there is the problem of divergent homology, which is the discovery of different structures, such as different types of eyes, in creatures that are otherwise almost 100% similar and were believed to be related by evolution. The eyes of some shrimp, for example,although the rest of the body parts are identical, are so different that it is impossible to even imagine an evolutionary intermediate. All these problems of homology can easily be solved by understanding they were put there by design, but are impossible to explain by a naturalistic process.
That’s okay. Nothing in empirical science is explained well by Darwin’s imaginative rehashing of the ancient Greek theory of a self forming universe. Not the gaps in the fossil record, not the gaps in living orders of animals, not the formation of life from non-living matter, nor how meaningful mutations could build overtime in the face ot the law of entropy.
None-the-less, homology remains the most popular argument for evolution, so we will look through a brief history of the evidence just to get a feel for how successful it has been over time. Why does it remain so popular? For one reason, since most people don’t research or ask questions, it is a very easy and superficial way to suggest evolution is true. Monkeys and men do look alike in some ways, and their behavior is similar at some points. The arm of the human, and the leg of the frog, the whale flipper and bat wing do have similarities in appearance. How many people realize that they are controlled by different gene complexes and form in different manners during embrylogical development? Very few.
The other reason is that while they have you looking at a homology, you are usually looking at animals of the same genus, like chimps and humans, so the gap they have to explain is much smaller than between a vertebrate or non-vertebrate, or between dead matter and a living, reproducing, biological machine. And they don’t mind using the power of suggestion and with-holding pertinent information, just like the cults, to convert you into a true believer.
But let’s start at the beginning, with Ernst Haeckels embryonic homologies, and then, though there are many others, some hoaxes, from that time period, we will jump to behaviorial homologies of chimps and humans.
In the 1860’s Ernst Haeckel found a very impressive homology for us to stare at. In the drawings of several embryos, Haeckel showed how similar they looked and then suggested that each type retraced it’s evolutionary history as it progressed towards birth. These drawings showing similar looking creatures at early stages were very impressive, so much so that they still appear in most textbooks today at the highschool level. They were fakes of course and Haeckel was reprimanded by his own university in 1868 for fraud. Never the less the embryos do look vaguely familiar at the earliest stages. As is usually the case with homology, however, the more we learn, the faster the evolutionary support begins to fail. It is now known that embryos don’t repeat their alleged evolutionary past(more than likely because they dont have an evolutionary past), but instead each type goes through cell development and division which is distinctly characteristic of it’s class. All the body parts develop in different patterns, frog digits form in a different manner than human hands and fingers for example. This is because, as we now know, each has been programmed from the very beginning by it’s own particular DNA code. The homology was very superficial though impressive on the surface.
Now, let’s jump ahead to the popular textbook presentation of the pendactyl forelimb found on whales, bats, humans and etc., as we said before this extremely over used homology has been known to be bogus for over 80 years. These body parts, unfortunately for the evolutionary paradigm, are not controlled by the same gene complexes. so are not the product of common genes being worked on by time and chance and passed down. As Gavin De Beer said back in 1938, ” What mechanism can it be that results in homologous organs, the same patterns, despite their not being controlled by the same genes…?” That rabbit should have been shot long ago but he can still be found feeding in your childs textbooks.
Not so common now, but very popular in the 1980’s through 90’s were the behavioral homologies between chimps and humans. We were shown TV show after TV show and magazine articles as well, of the “amazing speech and learning abilities” of Chimpanzees. These amazing homologies were touted as proof that chimps were, “almost human”. Within a fairly brief time span though other studies showed that birds, for example, could do everything that the amazing chimps did, so these evidences began to fade from the scene.
Other behaviors were shown, and in a convincing manner, that claimed to prove that chimps were almost little people. They would show you a film of a chimp putting a stick down a hole to catch ants and then an Aborigine doing the same thing. Again, the superficial power of these shows cannot be taken lightly, they were very convincing on the surface. Eventually though, other researchers were honest enough to admit that ants themselves were far more advanced in “human like” behavior then chimps. Ants actually domesticate aphids, putting them in “pens” at night and taking them out to pasture on leaves during the day. They also actually practice agriculture by growing under ground plots of fungi, which they plant and tend, just like human farmers. They also build bridges and can sew leaves together, just to name a few of their abilities. Can you imagine what hay the evolutionist would make out of this if chimps were found herding goats they had tamed from the wild and putting them in pens at night and milking them? And yet, just like the ant, it could be a convergent homology and have no more to do with evolutionary relationship then the ant behavior.But like my son’s and my netbooks, chimps and people do look alike. I could fill a book with the failed homologies of Darwinists, but you’re probably bored stiff already.
So let’s move on to the latest (therefore always the most convincing) homology of that between chimp and human DNA. Once again we find evolutionists making the most hay where we know the least. Do you see a pattern there?
In the first place we should point out as the molecular data rolled in, in certainly hasn’t favored the predictions of Darwin. Cytochrome c, hemglobin, protein function in different integrated biological systems have shown the same nested patterns of classes we see in both the fossil record and existing classes of animals. The cytocrhome c of the amphibian is farther distant from the dogfish, it alleged evolutionary ancestor, than a bunny rabbit. (Kenyon and Davis, Of Pandas and People).
And while the original 98% chimp/human genetic homology made big news, the fact that some field mice were rated close to 97% , and even the banana was said to be 60% homologous with humans somehow missed the headlines. All those numbers will change, as we still know very little about comparison of DNA, and are just beginning to understand the role that non-coding parts of the DNA plays in in gene function and regulation. This is important because the last I checked, non- coding parts of the DNA were not even considered in the initial chimp/human comparison. According to Jeffery Tomkins, in the June 2009 Acts and Facts, only sections of DNA that already showed similarity were used initially and large blocks of obviously dissimilar DNA were rejected right from the beginning, as well as large blocks of DNA shared by Gorillas and Humans but not by chimpanzees. These were also left out of the comparison. He also states that a large portion of the Chimp DNA was in fragmented form and that the researchers used human blocks of DNA to guide them in putting together the Chimp DNA into sequences. Talk about being led by your pre-suppositions.
Naturally this would skew the comparison in favor of Darwinian hopes. And so the comparison is yet far from complete and far from accurate. I doubt that the recent discovery that junk DNA is, as creationists predicted, not junk, has yet been fully taken into account either.
But even given the original 98%, how much is related to ancestry and how much is convergent? And the difference seems huge, particularly at the cognitive level. And given a 2 percent difference between the two genomes would give us approximately 60 million “spelling errors”, all going in the right direction and adding meaningful information to the chimp genome to create a human. Given that all we have seen so far from mutation accumulation is death, disease and information loss, this is a hard pill to swallow. (Sarfati, Refuting Evolution 2, Remine, The Biotic Message) Even giving 10 million years for the process, at given rates of mutation accumulation, that would give us only about 1700 mutations. A little short of the target. That certainly seems like a hard rabbit to put in a cage for our lockjawed evolutionary friends. I am sure however, that their presuppositions will prevail…The actual simularity may end up closer to 86%.
None-the -less, I am simply a wood cutter and I go with Moses. My personal experience and faith have shown that given enough time and accurate information, all evolutionary homologies raised against the straight forward teachings of Moses, will fail. Men are not monkeys, even though we would like to have the moral responsibilities of monkeys, so we could live like animals without the semblance of conscience. How futile.
Have a great day.