Jump to: navigation, search


4,133 bytes removed, 14:24, 22 June 2010
'''Homology''' involves the theory that #REDIRECT [[Macroevolution|macroevolutionary]] relationships can be demonstrated by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different animals. <ref name="Bergman">Bergman, 2001</ref> == Invalidity of the Homology Argument ==Creation scientists claim that similarity can just as readily be explained by a common Designer as common ancestry, and that homology is therefore not evidence that can be used to support the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary view]].<ref>Parker</ref><ref name="Bergman" /><ref>Anon., 1992</ref> Consequently, the widely-cited chimp/human [[DNA]] homology argument is also invalid.<ref>Batten, 1996</ref><ref>Purdom, 2006</ref><ref>Sarfati</ref> Furthermore, they argue that the evidence of ASSFLY JUST LOOVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSS Z''against'' the evolutionary view. For example, you would expect that similarity due to common ancestry would be controlled by similar genes passed down from ancestors to descendants. Yet there are many examples where similar (homologous) structures are controlled by ''different'' genes.<ref>Kofahl, 1992</ref> In addition, creationists argue that similarity is not just explainable by creation, but predicted. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] explains:{{cquote|Homologous structures, far from pointing away from a designer of infinite wisdom, would have indicated to readers of the Bible in their time a designer who did indeed possess infinite wisdom and mastery over His creation. It is only because modern persons have arbitrarily decided that a certain degree of what they see as ‘originality’ is a proper means value that the evolutionists’ argument carries any apparent force. To frame our argument against the evolutionists’ misuse of homologous structures requires us to have an understanding of certain values critical to ancient persons. Roman literature of the New Testament period tells us that ‘(t)he primary test of truth in religious matters was custom and tradition, the practices of the ancients.’ In other words, old was good, and innovation was bad. Change or novelty was ‘a means value which serves to innovate or subvert core and secondary values.’  By itself, this demolishes one part of the evolutionists’ argument and makes it, clearly, a case of arbitrary imposition of modern values. In a context such as the above, ‘radically different design’ would have indicated to an ancient reader either no deity, or else a deity whose means was chaos and instability, or a deity who did not have mastery over creation.<ref>Holding, 2006</ref>}}==External Links==*[ Neo-Darwinism's Homology Problem - Video Clip] == Bibliography ==* Anon., [ Similarities don’t prove evolution], ''Creation'' 14(2):30–31, March 1992.* Batten, Don, [ Human/chimp DNA similarity], ''Creation'' 19(1):21–22, December 1996.* Bergman, Jerry, [ Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism?], ''Journal of Creation'', 15(1):26–33, April 2001.* Holding, James Patrick, [ ‘Not to Be Used Again’: Homologous Structures and the Presumption of Originality as a Critical Value], Creation Ministries International, 29th November, 2006.* Kofahl, Robert E., [ A serious problem for homology], ''Creation'' 14(2):31, March 1992.* Parker, Gary, [ Comparative similarities: homology] (chapter 1 of Creation: The Facts of Life).* Purdom, Georgia, [ If human and chimp DNA are so similar, why are there so many physical and mental differences between them?] ''Answers'', 1(1):64, 5th September 2006.* Sarfati, Jonathan, [ Humans: images of God or advanced apes?] (Chapter 6 of Refuting Evolution). ==References==<small><references/></small> [[Category:Biology]][[Category: ScienceS MASSIVE COCK]]