Aug

4

What Scientific Proof Lies Behind Evolution?

August 4, 2007 | Hits for this post:1301 |

Homology and Bio-Chemical Similarities

Do biological and bio-chemical similarities necessarily mean common ancestors? What else could it mean?

Homology and bio-chemical similarities are really the same argument. Both allege that similar features in different organisms are due to inheritance from a common ancestor. Evolutionists use a number of studies to identify matching traits.

Homology examines similarities of bone structures from different animals. DNA hybridization evaluates the closeness of species relationship by how many DNA strands from different species can be matched.

Electrophoritic analysis show the degree of similarity of proteins from different species. And protein sequencing measures the closeness of relationship by the amount of DNA coding change which is needed to produce the slightly different proteins of different species. One protein sequencing study, for instance, shows there is only one percent difference between chimpanzees and humans.

Forelimbs are the most widely cited example of homology. You may have seen the drawings in school. A human arm is compared bone by bone with forelimbs of whales, dogs, bats, and sometimes a bird wing. After noting how closely they correspond, evolutionists conclude these limbs are based on the same pattern because they evolved from a common ancestor.

More recently, measurable protein and DNA similarities have added more of a scientific punch to the claim. But the argument remains as before. The more similar the form, the closer it is related, and the more recent is the common ancestor.

Based on proteins and DNA studies, evolutionists think that orangutans separated from the man-chimpanzee-gorilla group ten or eleven million years ago. DNA hybridization test indicate gorillas branched away from the man-chimp line eight to ten million years ago. But chimpanzees and humans didn’t separate until six or seven million years ago. At any rate, that is what microbiologists believe.

The question is, does similarity necessarily mean relationship? A boat, a plane, and a car are all similar. Each is a means of transportation; each has a type of engine to provide power; each requires fuel; each has a guidance system; each requires a human to make it function; each has an enclosure to protect the passengers; and each has seats for the convenience of the passengers. See the similarities?

But are the boat, plane, and car related? No. They are similar because they were all designed for a similar purpose - transportation. And they all came from the mind of man.

When the Wright brothers first flew at Kitty Hawk, they didn’t start from scratch. Engines already existed, seats already existed, and baling wire already existed. Orville and Wilbur did not need to reinvent the wheel. They used all the technology on hand to help build their plane. By the same token, why would we expect the Creator to start from scratch every time he designs a new plant, animal, or human? His proven bio-chemical technology was already at hand.

Many features, proteins and DNA sequences in man are similar to or identical to other primates. We agree. But that doesn’t prove man and chimpanzee had a common ancestor. It’s just as reasonable to decide that the same Creator made them both.

Many General Motors’ cars have a similar look and very similar, often identical, parts under the hood. Certainly, no one claims they descended from a common ancestor. You and I know those cars are so much alike because they originated in the minds of the same designers. It may well be that chimpanzees and man have a lot in common because they too originated in the mind of the same designer.

Embryology

In 1868 Ernst Haeckel, an enthusiastic supporter of evolution, formulated his “fundamental biogenetic law.” It states that an embryo goes through stages during which it resembles its ancestry. At one point, the human embryo has a feature resembling fish gills, so we must have had fish in our ancestry, concluded Haeckel.

According to Haeckel, everything in the animal kingdom descended from a gastrula, which is an early stage in most animals embryonic development. He faked evidence to support his claim. Haeckel was caught and admitted that some of his embryonic drawings were forgeries.

Notwithstanding, the gill slit misconception caught on and is still cited as evidence that humans evolved from fish. Although the pouches do superficially resemble fish gills, they have nothing to do with breathing. They are the early states of the lower jaw, ear, and neck including the thyroid and parathyroid glands. It’s a feature of embryonic function, not evolution.

What this embryonic claim really proved was just how eager nineteenth century evolutionists were to use any argument, however specious, to further their cause.

Vestigial Organs

Gill slits are just one example of what evolutionists call vestigial organs. The idea is that sometime in the distant past these organs had a purpose, but they are no longer useful. Vestigial organs imply evolution. If man were created, there would be no reason for them. Evolutionists found 180 vestigial organs, most of which were muscles. Only six are still around. The rest are now known to be useful or even essential.

From 180 down to six is a pretty good drop in vestigial organs. Given a few more years, it is reasonable to think we might find functions for the rest of them too. Naturalists no longer stress vestigial organs. They have proved to be an embarrassment.

Lost Functions

Certainly, organs can lose their functions. Wingless insects show up on isolated islands., large flightless birds turn up in Africa, and blind fish and amphibians are found in deep caves. But it is difficult to see any evolutionary gain in the loss of a function. True, the loss of a function does make them different. They are oddities. Their chance of survival cannot be enhanced by the loss. If anything, the blind or flightless creatures are one step closer to extinction.

Bone structures, proteins, and DNA sequences all reveal similarities and differences between species. But none prove evolution anymore than they prove creation. Bear in mind, the same Creator could produce different types of creatures using many of the same biological parts and much of the same bio-chemical technology. Why would he do otherwise?

Embryology was based in a combination of superficial resemblances and faked evidence. What did it prove? Not much, other than at least one nineteenth-century evolutionist was dishonest, and many others were gullible. Human embryos do not have gills; they have pouches which look somewhat like fish gills. Embryology does not prove evolution.

Vestigial organs have steadily diminished over the years. Evolutionists no longer rely on them to support their theory, although they still occasionally turn up in textbooks. Of the original 180 vestigial organs listed, 174 were later found to have functions.

What’s the bottom line? Bottom line is: neither evolution nor creationism can be proved by biological similarities, embryology, vestigial organs, or lost functions.

Jerry Boone, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, United States webmaster@merechristianity.us Mr. Boone is a sailor, author, and webmaster of http://merechristianity.us with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Anthropology from Georgia State University. His works include: Mere Christianity.us and SAFETY LINE - EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN, an apologetic study published 1998.
Author:Jerry Richard Boone
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jerry_Richard_Boone

Tags | , , , , , , ,


Related Science Article

  • The Man Who Discovered How Blood Circulates
  • Tiwanaku Alien and Evolution
  • 1st Grade Science Project Ideas
  • Window Tinting School - An Entrepreneur’s Dream
  • Is Home Schooling In Your Future?


    • Comments

    Name (required)

    Email (required)

    Speak your mind

    3 Comments so far

    1. Bob StClair on August 4, 2007 1:01 pm

      Jerry - I suppose some scientists do claim that they have “proved” a theory by their experiments. Yet by definition, a theory can not be proved. When a scientist produces data that claims to “prove” a theory, one should say instead that the data is consistent with theory. Use of the word “prove” suggests that theories can have the status of truth. That is not what a theory is, of course. My science training (I’m a chemist) tells me that a theory is nothing more than a useful and convenient explanation for a body of data. It allows scientists to make sense of a confusing natural world. Thus a theory does not have to be true, just useful. In my own field, chemistry, numerous theories have been proven to be false over the centuries, yet in their time they were indeed useful, leading to new data that unfolded better (ie: more useful) theories.
      So, you are correct to question some aspects of current evolutionary theory. What would help our understanding would be a more useful theory, one that would better address more questions like some that you have raised.

    2. James Collins on August 6, 2007 2:17 pm

      Excellent article, we desperately need more of the same!

    3. derek on August 9, 2007 8:38 am

      this is a ridiculous article. Why bother making such an argument?

    Search


    Recently Written

    Article Education Hits

    Most Comment

    Recent Comments: