Customer Discussions > Evolution forum

Evolutionist Beliefs Proven Wrong in Portraying Common Structures as Evidence of Evolution (as always, click to reveal blocked posts evolutionists want to suppress)


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 228 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Oct 23, 2012 12:26:45 PM PDT
Emilio Largo says:
Another phenomenon that the National Academy of Sciences represents as proof of the theory of evolution is homology. Homologies are common structures possessed by different living things. The NAS has taken the similarities in the skeletons of human beings and such animals as mice and bats as an example and proposed that "they are best explained by common descent." (Science and Creationism, 1999, p. 14) The NAS repeats the claims made and examples cited in Darwin's The Origin of Species, but entirely ignores the discoveries made in the fields of anatomy and biology since Darwin's day, thus demonstrating that it has remained at the scientific level of 150 years ago.

Posted on Oct 23, 2012 8:08:27 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 23, 2012 8:11:31 PM PDT
Emilio Largo says:
No replies yet?
Well, before moving on to the evolutionists' unscientific claims, let's first have a quick look at the concept of homology:

In the chapter of The Origin of Species entitled "Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings: Morphology, Embryology, Rudimentary Organs", Darwin spoke of similar structures in species and suggested that this could only be accounted for by his theory of development from a common ancestor.

Although Darwin and the evolutionists who came after him maintained that the only explanation for common structures between living things is evolution from a common ancestor, most scientists before Darwin agreed that common structures were the work of a common design.

Darwinists of the past and present regard evolution from a common ancestor as the cause of homology; at the same time, they also portray homology as the strongest evidence for descent from a common ancestor (circular reasoning). However, advances in such fields as anatomy, biochemistry, and microbiology over the last 60 years have shown that homology does not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution, and that descent from a common ancestor is not the cause of homology. In his book, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, the well-known science writer Richard Milton states that homology had been one of evolutionists' most important pieces of evidence, but as science advanced over the course of the twentieth century, homology came to represent one of the most important difficulties facing Dawinism:

"In the past hundred years, biology has undergone successive revolutions - in embryology, in microbiology, in molecular biology, and in genetics; revolutions which have laid open on the laboratory bench the most minute detail of how plants and animals are constructed. If the Darwinian interpretation of homology is correct, then you would expect to find at the microscopic level the same homologies that are found at the macroscopic level. In fact that is not what has been found." (Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, 1997, p. 179)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 10:04:15 PM PDT
logical fallacy

things that look alike need not be related

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2012 2:03:46 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 24, 2012 2:14:08 AM PDT
Gwaithmir says:
Largo said: "Another phenomenon that the National Academy of Sciences represents as proof of the theory of evolution is homology. Homologies are common structures possessed by different living things. The NAS has taken the similarities in the skeletons of human beings and such animals as mice and bats as an example and proposed that 'they are best explained by common descent.' (Science and Creationism, 1999, p. 14) The NAS repeats the claims made and examples cited in Darwin's The Origin of Species, but entirely ignores the discoveries made in the fields of anatomy and biology since Darwin's day, thus demonstrating that it has remained at the scientific level of 150 years ago."

>I warned you about being foolish enough to quote from this publication without actually having read it, Largo. Once again, your dishonesty and ignorance are apparent. The Illustrations in question were taken from "Patterns in Evolution: The New Molecular View" by Roger Lewin.

>http://www.amazon.com/Patterns-Evolution-Molecular-scientific-American/dp/0716760363/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1351069489&sr=1-1&keywords=patterns+in+evolution+the+new+molecular+view

>From the editorial review: "Science journalist and author Roger Lewin shows readers how the tools of biology are transforming the way in which evolution is viewed. The advent of genetic analysis, sometimes of DNA extracted from the remains of creatures that lived thousands of years ago, has enabled scientists to remap the history of life, and has led to findings about evolutionary lineages and aspects of modern animal behaviour."

>Please note that this is in direct opposition to what you stated in the latter part of your OP. Lewin's book is up-to-date in relation to the NAS publication and incorporates the very scientific knowledge and discoveries you claim it ignores. Once again, you have been powned because you failed to do your homework.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2012 2:23:42 AM PDT
Gwaithmir says:
andthehorsewhodoodledoo said: "logical fallacy" (sic)

"things that look alike need not be related" (sic)

>Kindly study up on a subject before you once again get exposed for the simplistic troll you really are:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2012 2:38:48 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 24, 2012 2:46:05 AM PDT
Gwaithmir says:
Largo posted: Darwinists of the past and present regard evolution from a common ancestor as the cause of homology; at the same time, they also portray homology as the strongest evidence for descent from a common ancestor (circular reasoning). However, advances in such fields as anatomy, biochemistry, and microbiology over the last 60 years have shown that homology does not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution, and that descent from a common ancestor is not the cause of homology. In his book, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, the well-known science writer Richard Milton states that homology had been one of evolutionists' most important pieces of evidence, but as science advanced over the course of the twentieth century, homology came to represent one of the most important difficulties facing Dawinism:

"In the past hundred years, biology has undergone successive revolutions - in embryology, in microbiology, in molecular biology, and in genetics; revolutions which have laid open on the laboratory bench the most minute detail of how plants and animals are constructed. If the Darwinian interpretation of homology is correct, then you would expect to find at the microscopic level the same homologies that are found at the macroscopic level. In fact that is not what has been found." (Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, 1997, p. 179)

>Richard Milton has no training in evolution or its related sciences and has no standing in the scientific community. His book, "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism", has been rightly described as pseudoscience:

>From Library Journal:
"With selective evidence and twisted logic, Milton (Alternative Science, Inner Traditions, 1996) attempts to discredit the concept of organic evolution. Although raising important questions about interpretation and methodology, he fails to overturn the neo-Darwinian framework as he attacks as "myths" the claims of modern science concerning the age of this planet, the geological column with its fossil record, and even the biological relationship between the great apes and our own species. He ignores most of the recent evolutionary literature (especially in paleoanthropology and primatology), and his chapters are full of dated illustrations, misleading generalizations, and glaring errors, e.g., "the evidence for humankind's own evolution is actually nonexistent" and "Today, 'Java man' is thought to be an extinct, giant gibbonlike creature and not connected to humans." His own interpretation of earth history remains ambiguous, leaving the reader to wonder about what hidden motive underscores this morass of falsehoods. Not recommended."

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Milton_(author)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2012 5:30:27 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Oh, I see Largo has moved over here to avoid having to answer any of the questions posed to him or provide evidence for his claims. Let's see how well he can keep dodging...

5 Requests for Empirical Evidence:
1. Show evidence for the supernatural designer/creator/deity
2. Show evidence that this supernatural designer/creator/deity has the abilities to actually create the universe ex nihilo
3. Show evidence for an ex nihilo creation
4. Show evidence that the supernatural designer/creator/deity had the motivation to create the universe ex nihilo
5. Show evidence that this supernatural designer/creator/deity actually created the universe ex nihilo

4 Easy Facts for Largo to Explain:
1. Vitamin C synthesis in mammals.
2. Endogenous retroviruses in humans, apes and chimps.
3. Chromosome number in humans and apes.
4. The recurrent laryngeal nerve.

Well, Largo? Got any answers yet? What's taking so long, hmm?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2012 6:04:04 AM PDT
Gwaithmir says:
Since Largo has started a new thread, it's only appropriate that his creationist report card is once again posted for the edification of new readers and participants:

>Avoids accessing links to scientific theories and facts.
>Most frequently argues from personal incredulity.
>Quotes scientists out of context (quote-mining).
>Doesn't actually research or read the sources he quotes from.
>Attempts to refute evolution by posting outdated material.
>Appeals to authority.
>Argues from assertion.
>Argues from ridicule.
>Offers no constructive arguments against evolution, only denials.
>Fails to respond to or offer counterarguments to evidence posted in challenge to his claims.
>Establishes special creation by faulting evolution.
>Posts ad hominum commentary.
>Engages in frequent prevarication.
>Exhibits cultivated ignorance of evolution and related sciences.
>Exhibits ignorance of even the creationist material he cuts and pastes from.
>Repeatedly posts claims which have been previously refuted.
>Uses multiple accounts to upvote his own posts.
>Uses multiple accounts to downvote his opponents' posts.
>Reports as abuse posts he finds overwhelmingly devastating to his claims.
>Responds with abusive remarks to posts he finds overwhelmingly devastating to his claims.
>Engages in plagiarism.
>Frequently denigrates education in the evolutionary sciences as "brain-washing."
>Offers unqualified (and puerile) rebuttals to scientific experts in their own fields of study.
>An unabashed hypocrite, he accuses opponents of posting nonsense, ad hominem remarks, and URL's, yet does these things himself whenever it suits him.
>Cowardly refuses to acknowledge when he's been powned.
>Accuses evolutionary proponents of being biased atheists.
>To date, has not offered any rational hypotheses or empirical evidence to support creationism.
>Replies with flip remarks in an attempt to conceal his woeful ignorance of evolution and related sciences.

Posted on Oct 24, 2012 9:46:44 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 24, 2012 9:52:03 AM PDT
Emilio Largo says:
Evolutionists both portray homology as proof of descent from a common ancestor and describe it as a descent from a common ancestor. This is a tautology - in other words, circular reasoning - and scientifically speaking, proves nothing at all.

Evolutionists make the same mistake as Darwin and suggest that a common ancestor is the best explanation of the common structures among living things. In suggesting that descent from a common ancestor is a certain fact, they are making an assumption based on a preconception, then they they turn around and say that the only explanation for common structures is a common ancestor. But it gets worse - any observation they make - be it on the anatomical or microbiological level - they misconstrue the facts with calculated deliberation and use their positions as experts in their field to dress up their agenda, which is nothing more than a drawn out, preconceived farce with no scientific value. In other words, any similarity in DNA or in anatomical structures is proof of common descent because anything similar is automatic proof of common descent. They used this same line of reasoning at the Salem Witch Trials.

Posted on Oct 24, 2012 10:41:15 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Still waiting for you to come up with answers to those very simple questions, Largo.

What's taking so long?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2012 12:25:44 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 24, 2012 12:26:07 PM PDT
Emilio Largo says:
Cryin' Brian -

You can take your straw man questions and give yourself a colonoscopy with them. Not taking the bait. Try to stay on task, genius.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2012 12:40:41 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 24, 2012 12:46:05 PM PDT
Gwaithmir says:
Largo said: "Evolutionists both portray homology as proof of descent from a common ancestor and describe it as a descent from a common ancestor. This is a tautology - in other words, circular reasoning - and scientifically speaking, proves nothing at all."

>Wrong! Homology is not defined as similarity due to common ancestry and then used as evidence for common ancestry. Rather, the evidence for common ancestry comes from the patterns of similarity of many traits. These similarities show that organisms group naturally into nested hierarchy.

>Ladybugs and scarabs are both types of beetles sharing common traits, such as hardened front wings. Beetles, flies and grasshoppers are types of insect. Insects, scorpions and centipedes are types of arthropod.

>Such grouping does not depend upon any assumption about origins and was, in fact, first codified by Linnaeus, a creationist. A grouping suggested by many common traits is evidence of common ancestry. The homology label gets added AFTER the evidence for common ancestry is already in.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2012 12:45:24 PM PDT
Gwaithmir says:
Largo said: "Cryin' Brian - You can take your straw man questions and give yourself a colonoscopy with them. Not taking the bait. Try to stay on task, genius."

>In other words, you can't find anything to cut and paste from Harun Yahya's website which you can use for a reply. We can expect nothing else from an intellectual illiterate with a closed mind.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2012 12:54:18 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 24, 2012 12:55:36 PM PDT
Emilio Largo says:
No, genius. Similarities among insects, mammals, crustaceans, arachnids, etc. indicate they are of the same family. It does not indicate a common ancestor or common descent. For example, all mammals have warm blood and the females nourish their offspring with milk. That does not mean that mice and men evolved from a common ancestor or that monkeys turned into men. It does point to common design from a common Creator, though. Why? No transitional forms linking anything to anything and no known biological mechanism or process that would facilitate massive physical and physiological changes to transform one creature into another, even over millions of years.

Unless, of course, you claim that similarities point to common descent because they are similarities. Circular reasoning. Back to square one.

Stick to your little report cards, genius.

Posted on Oct 24, 2012 3:42:14 PM PDT
Esgaldil says:
Common Descent and Common Design are two ways of explaining homologies with very different implications. Common Design explains why chimp thumbs are very similar to human thumbs at the genetic level. Common Design does not explain why chimp livers, kidneys, hearts, and lungs are very similar to humans at the genetic level. Wolves have homologous kidneys, hearts, livers, and lungs to chimps, so why should the parts of the wolf gene responsible for these organs be so different from chimps and humans? Why are the genes for bat wings more like the genes for rat forelegs than the genes for bird wings? If the Designer were reusing relevant designs, there's no reason to reinvent the mammal wing from scratch using only those pieces already found among mammals - just because all other mammals lack feathers, why not give feathers to a bat if they might be useful? Even better, why not put gills on a dolphin? Nothing about warm blood makes one allergic to gills. Is there any advantage to the lungs of dolphins and sea turtles (who wouldn't have to crawl ashore to lay eggs if newly hatched turtles had gills), or is the Designer just a mean prankster?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2012 5:30:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 24, 2012 5:35:30 PM PDT
Emilio Largo says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2012 5:43:12 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 24, 2012 5:44:32 PM PDT
noman says:
RE: Evoblock prattles "...They used this same line of reasoning at the Salem Witch Trials."

**If by "they" you mean Ministers of God and Politicians, then you are correct. Then and now "they" use demagoguery, lies and brute force to impose their will.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2012 6:12:04 PM PDT
"Not taking the bait. "

Coward

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2012 6:25:43 PM PDT
barbW says:
great post, thanks

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2012 8:10:41 PM PDT
Emilio Largo says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Oct 24, 2012 8:49:47 PM PDT
Emilio Largo says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2012 3:55:37 AM PDT
Gwaithmir says:
Largo said: "Similarities among insects, mammals, crustaceans, arachnids, etc. indicate they are of the same family. It does not indicate a common ancestor or common descent. For example, all mammals have warm blood and the females nourish their offspring with milk. That does not mean that mice and men evolved from a common ancestor or that monkeys turned into men. It does point to common design from a common Creator, though. Why? No transitional forms linking anything to anything and no known biological mechanism or process that would facilitate massive physical and physiological changes to transform one creature into another, even over millions of years."

>You are merely arguing from denial, Largo. You've already been powned on this issue multiple times, as everyone here knows---including you. The fossil record is replete with transitional forms, whether you like it or not.

>http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils
>http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms

>Before you can invoke a common Creator, you must have proof of his/her/its existence. Kindly provide such proof.

Largo said: "Stick to your little report cards, genius."

>We can go over your creationist's report card any time you'd like. There's nothing there that can't be substantiated from your past behaviour in these discussions, as you well know.

Posted on Oct 25, 2012 4:49:38 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 25, 2012 4:50:07 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
What's the holdup on answering these simple questions, Largo? Can't find a suitable text to copy from Harun Yahya?

C'mon, show us that you've got more than denial for a change: answer the questions, if you can. Or at least admit that you can't.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2012 5:28:25 AM PDT
"Christine - Just a word of advice. It's considered bad form to pull up a chair at the buffet. "

Thanks for showing, once again, that you have no answer to my posts.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2012 8:13:35 AM PDT
A customer says:
andthehorsebyproduct - "things that look alike need not be related"

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which concerns homology. The bones in reptilian jaws do not "look like" those in mammalian ears. They are nevertheless homologous. The bones of the human head and hand do not "look like" the first four segments of lampreys or the wing bones of bats. They are nevertheless homologous.

These do not "prove" common descent, but common descent is nevertheless the only explanation that can both explain them and accommodate all other lines of evidence.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Evolution forum (575 discussions)

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Evolution forum
Participants:  19
Total posts:  228
Initial post:  Oct 23, 2012
Latest post:  Apr 15, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions