"The Negative Scientific Evidence against Evolution" pt.2

THE CASE FOR A CREATOR is a remarkable film about Lee Strobel's journey from spiritual skepticism to a profound faith in the God who has etched his indelible signature upon every galaxy and living cell.

In this second part of the examination of the "Negative Scientific Evidence Against Evolution" Strobel examines primarily the CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION, and the insurmountable burden it presents to the theory of Darwinian Evolution.  In the Cambrian Explosion, we find a vast increase in the FORMS and also in the INFORMATION of animal types in the fossil record.  

What is the best and most scientific explanation for this dramatic increase in Form and Information.... a Designer or "Random Mutations" acting upon Natural Selection?

Watch and decide for yourself...


Series - "Icons of Evolution, Fossil Horses"

Three years before Charles Darwin's death in 1882, Yale University paleontologist Othniel Marsh published a drawing of horse fossils to show how modern one-toed horses had evolved from a small four-toed ancestor. Marsh's drawing, which included only leg-bones and teeth, was soon supplemented by skulls, and illustrations of horse fossils quickly found their way into museum exhibits and biology textbooks as evidence for evolution. Early versions of these illustrations showed horse evolution proceeding in a straight line from the primitive ancestor through a series of intermediates to the modern horse. (Figure 10-1) But paleontologists soon learned that horse evolution was much more complicated than this. Instead of being a linear progression from one form to another, it appeared to be a branching tree, with most of its branches ending in extinction. Although advocates of Darwinian evolution have done almost nothing to correct the other icons of evolution, they have made a determined effort to correct this one. Since the 1950s, neo-Darwinian paleontologists have been actively campaigning to replace the old linear picture of horse evolution with the branching tree.

Drawings such as this one (created in 1902) used to be common in museum exhibits and biology textbooks, and can still be found in some places today. The two oldest members of the series, Hyracotherium and Protorohippus, had four toes on their front feet; the next two members, Mesohippus and Protohippus, each had three; and Equus, the modern horse, has one.

The reason for their campaign, however, is more interesting than the horse icon itself. People used to regard the old icon as evidence that evolution was directed, either supernaturally or by internal vital forces. Neo-Darwinists now ridicule directed evolution as a myth, and cite the new branching-tree arrangement of horse fossils as evidence that evolution is undirected. But the doctrine of undirected evolution is philosophical, not empirical. It preceded all evidence for Darwin's theory, and it goes far beyond the evidence we now have. Like several other Darwinian claims we've seen, it is a concept masquerading as a neutral description of nature. 

Jonathan Wells. Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong

Series - "Icons of Evolution, Four winged fruit flies"

July 22, 2010, marked the 100th anniversary of genetic investigations using fruit flies. The first such study appeared in 


 in 1910 and described the unexpected appearance of a male fruit fly with white eyes after generations of flies with pigmented eyes.


 This began a century of focused studies on fruit fly mutations, but what has really been learned by all this tinkering?

For most of the past century--and especially since the discovery of DNA as a physical molecule carrying heritable information--the prevailing concept of neo-Darwinian evolution has held mutations to be the central generator of new and useful information. Thus, mutations have been given ample opportunity to prove themselves, if they are naturally selected, as having "the power to drive the evolution of all living things in the direction of positive improvement."


Fruit flies, with their short generation times and only four pairs of chromosomes, presented prime testing ground for evolution. In laboratories worldwide, they have been subjected to all manner of mutation-inducing phenomena, including hosts of chemicals and radiation treatments, to try and accelerate evolution-mimicking mutations. After all this, fruit flies should have certainly exemplified evolution by now.


 But they haven't.

So, having achieved no evolutionary progression in fruit flies by these random means, researchers made them the focus of countless purposeful gene manipulation studies. The most popular, from an evolutionary perspective, were experiments with what are called HOX genes.

HOX, an abbreviation of "homeobox," are genes used by the organism during embryonic development. Many reasoned that it would be simpler for evolution to operate by mutating these genes, since a small alteration could produce a large effect in the fly's body. However, this was before recent studies showed that embyronic development is more heavily influenced by regulatory DNA, not genes. And mutating (through substituting, deleting, or duplicating) developmental genes like HOX has only ever yielded a dead fly, a normal fly (if the mutation happened to have no noticeable effect), or a tiny monster. None of these results match the "positive improvement" expected of Darwinian evolution.

Extra body segments, an extra set of wings, or legs in the place of antennae characterized the weird forms that were generated. Three generations of specifically designed DNA alterations were required to produce fruit flies with four wings--but they couldn't fly. The extra wings had no muscles and were dead weight. One recent exploration of neo-Darwinism remarked:

The mutants that produce four-winged fruit flies survive today only in a carefully controlled environment and only when skilled researchers meticulously guide their subjects through one non-functional stage after another. This carefully controlled experiment does not tell us much about what undirected mutations can produce in the wild.3

In his book 


, Colin Patterson summarized the lost hope of finding evolution from HOX investigations:

The spectacular effects of homeobox gene mutations were first seen in Drosophila, early in the history of genetics. Carriers of some of these mutations certainly qualify as monsters--though without much hope.4

Whereas fruit fly studies have provided critical information about how genes, nerves, longevity, and other biological machines and processes operate, no progress whatsoever has been made in the quest to accelerate these insects' "evolution" by ramping up their mutations. The survivors of 100 years of lab torture are still just fruit flies.


  1. Morgan, T. H. 1910. Sex Limited Inheritance in DrosophilaScience. 32 (812): 120-122.
  2. Dawkins, R. 2009. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. New York: Free Press, 31.
  3. Meyer, S. C. et al. 2007. Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism. London: Hill House Publishers, 105.
  4. Patterson, C. 1999. Evolution, 2nd ed. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 114.

Article taken from Institute for Creation Research.

To read more please click HERE

Series - "Icons of Evolution, Archaeopteryx: The Missing Link" Part 2

Problems with Dinosaurs Evolving into Birds

Warm-blooded vs. cold-blooded

Seemingly forgotten in all the claims that birds are essentially dinosaurs (or at least that they evolved from dinosaurs) is the fact that dinosaurs are reptiles. There are many differences between birds and reptiles, including the fact that (with precious few exceptions) living reptiles are cold-blooded creatures, while birds and mammals are warm-blooded. Indeed, even compared to most mammals, birds have exceptionally high body temperatures resulting from a high metabolic rate.

The difference between cold- and warm-blooded animals isn’t simply in the relative temperature of the blood but rather in their ability to maintain a constant body core temperature. Thus, warm-blooded animals such as birds and mammals have internal physiological mechanisms to maintain an essentially constant body temperature; they are more properly called “endothermic.” In contrast, reptiles have a varying body temperature influenced by their surrounding environment and are called “ectothermic.” An ectothermic animal can adjust its body temperature behaviorally (e.g., moving between shade and sun), even achieving higher body temperature than a so-called warm-blooded animal, but this is done by outside factors.

In an effort to make the evolution of dinosaurs into birds seem more plausible, some evolutionists have argued that dinosaurs were also endothermic, but there is no clear evidence for this.

One of the lines of evidence for endothermic dinosaurs is based on the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones. Fossil dinosaur bones have been found containing special microscopic structures called osteons (or Haversian systems). Osteons are complex concentric layers of bone surrounding blood vessels in areas where the bone is dense. This arrangement is assumed by some to be unique to endothermic animals and thus evidence that dinosaurs are endothermic, but such is not the case. Larger vertebrates (whether reptiles, birds, or mammals) may also have this type of bone. Even tuna fish have osteonal bone in their vertebral arches.

Another argument for endothermy in dinosaurs is based on the eggs and assumed brood behavior of dinosaurs, but this speculation too has been challenged. There is in fact no theropod brooding behavior not known to occur in crocodiles and other cold-blooded living reptiles.

Alan Feduccia, an expert on birds and their evolution, has concluded that “there has never been, nor is there now, any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic.” Feduccia says that despite the lack of evidence “many authors have tried to make specimens conform to the hot-blooded theropod dogma.”

“Bird-hipped” vs. “lizard-hipped” dinosaurs

All dinosaurs are divided into two major groups based on the structure of their hips (pelvic bones): the lizard-hipped dinosaurs (saurischians) and the bird-hipped dinosaurs (ornithiscians). The main difference between the two hip structures is that the pubic bone of the bird-hipped dinosaurs is directed toward the rear (as it is in birds) rather than entirely to the front (as it is in mammals and reptiles).

But in most other respects, the bird-hipped dinosaurs, including such huge quadrupedal sauropods as Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus, are even less bird-like than the lizard-hipped, bipedal dinosaurs such as the theropods. This point is rarely emphasized in popular accounts of dinosaur/bird evolution.

The three-fingered hand

One of the main lines of evidence cited by evolutionists for the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs is the three-fingered “hand” found in both birds and theropods. The problem is that recent studies have shown that there is a digital mismatch between birds and theropods.

Most terrestrial vertebrates have an embryological development based on the five-fingered hand. In the case of birds and theropod dinosaurs, two of the five fingers are lost (or greatly reduced) and three are retained during development of the embryo. If birds evolved from theropods, one would expect the same three fingers to be retained in both birds and theropod dinosaurs, but such is not the case. Evidence shows that the fingers retained in theropod dinosaurs are fingers 1, 2, and 3 (the “thumb” is finger 1) while the fingers retained in birds are 2, 3, and 4.

Avian vs. reptilian lung

One of the most distinctive features of birds is their lungs. Bird lungs are small in size and nearly rigid, but they are, nevertheless, highly efficient to meet the high metabolic needs of flight. Bird respiration involves a unique “flow-through ventilation” into a set of nine interconnecting flexible air sacs sandwiched between muscles and under the skin. The air sacs contain few blood vessels and do not take part in oxygen exchange, but rather function like bellows to move air through the lungs.

An avian lung

The air sacs permit a unidirectional flow of air through the lungs resulting in higher oxygen content than is possible with the bidirectional air flow through the lungs of reptiles and mammals. The air flow moves through the same tubes at different times both into and out of the lungs of reptiles and mammals, and this results in a mixture of oxygen-rich air with oxygen-depleted air (air that has been in the lungs for awhile). The unidirectional flow through bird lungs not only permits more oxygen to diffuse into the blood but also keeps the volume of air in the lungs nearly constant, a requirement for maintaining a level flight path.

A reptillian lung

If theropod dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, one might expect to find evidence of an avian-type lung in such dinosaurs. While fossils generally do not preserve soft tissue such as lungs, a very fine theropod dinosaur fossil (


) has been found in which the outline of the visceral cavity has been well preserved. The evidence clearly indicates that this theropod had lung and respiratory mechanics similar to that of a crocodile—not a bird. Specifically, there was evidence of a diaphragm-like muscle separating the lung from the liver, much as you see in modern crocodiles (birds lack a diaphragm). These observations suggest that this theropod was similar to an ectothermic reptile, not an endothermic bird.

Origin of Feathers

Do feathered dinosaurs exist?

Feathers have long been considered to be unique to birds. Certainly all living birds have feathers of some kind, while no living creature other than birds has been found to have a cutaneous appendage even remotely similar to a feather. Since most evolutionists are certain that birds evolved from dinosaurs (or at least are closely related to them), there has been an intense effort to find dinosaur fossils that show some suggestion of feathers or “protofeathers.” With such observer bias, one must be skeptical of recent widely publicized reports of feathered dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs are reptiles, and so it is not surprising that fossil evidence has shown them to have a scaly skin typical of reptiles. For example, a recently discovered well-preserved specimen of


 (a small theropod dinosaur of the type believed to be most closely related to birds) showed unmistakable evidence of scales but alas—no feathers.

Still, there have been many claims of feathered dinosaurs, particularly from fossils found in Liaoning province in northeastern China. The earliest feathered dinosaur from this source is the very unbird-like dinosaur Sinosauropteryx, which lacks any evidence of structures that could be shown to be feather-like.

Structures described as “protofeathers” in the dinosaur fossils Sinosauropteryx and Sinithosaurus are filamentous and sometimes have interlaced structures bearing no obvious resemblance to feathers. It now appears likely that these filaments (often referred to as “dino-fuzz”) are actually connective tissue fibers (collagen) found in the deep dermal layer of the skin. Feduccia laments that “the major and most worrying problem of the feathered dinosaur hypothesis is that the integumental structures have been homologized with avian feathers on the basis of anatomically and paleontologically unsound and misleading information.”

Complicating matters even further is the fact that true birds have been found among the Liaoning province fossils in the same layers as their presumed dinosaur ancestors. The obvious bird fossil Confuciusornis sanctus, for example, has long slender tail feathers resembling those of a modern scissor-tail flycatcher. Two taxa (Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx) that were thought to be dinosaurs with true feathers are now generally conceded to be flightless birds.

Thus far, the only obvious dinosaur fossil with obvious feathers that was “found” is Archaeoraptor liaoningensis. This so-called definitive feathered dinosaur was reported with much fanfare in the November 1999 issue of National Geographic but has since been shown to be a fraud.

What would it prove if features common to one type of animal were found on another? Nothing. Simply put, God uses various designs with various creatures. Take the platypus, for example—a mosaic. It has several design features that are shared with other animals, and yet it is completely distinct. So if a dinosaur (or mammal) is ever found with feathers, it would call into question our human criteria for classification, not biblical veracity. What’s needed to support evolution is not an unusual mosaic of complete traits, but a trait in transition, such as a “scale-feather,” what creationist biologists would call a “sceather.”

Feathers and scales are dissimilar.

If birds evolved from dinosaurs or any other reptile, then feathers must have evolved from reptilian scales. Evolutionists are so confident that feathers evolved from scales that they often claim that feathers are very similar to scales. The popular Encarta computerized encyclopedia (1997) describes feathers as a “horny outgrowth of skin peculiar to the bird but similar in structure and origin to the scales of fish and reptiles.”

In actual fact, feathers are profoundly different from scales in both their structure and growth. Feathers grow individually from tube-like follicles similar to hair follicles. Reptilian scales, on the other hand, are not individual follicular structures but rather comprise a continuous sheet on the surface of the body. Thus, while feathers grow and are shed individually (actually in symmetrically matched pairs!), scales grow and are shed as an entire sheet of skin.

A close-up image of a feather
A close-up image of scales

The feather vane is made up of hundreds of barbs, each bearing hundreds of barbules interlocked with tiny hinged hooklets. This incredibly complex structure bears not the slightest resemblance to the relatively simple reptilian scale. Still, evolutionists continue to publish imaginative scenarios of how long-fringed reptile scales evolved by chance into feathers, but evidence of “sceathers” eludes them.

Archaeopteryx, a True Bird, Is Older than the “Feathered” Dinosaurs.

One of the biggest dilemmas for those who want to believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds is that the so-called feathered dinosaurs found thus far are dated to be about 20 million years more recent than Archaeopteryx. This is a problem for evolution because Archaeopteryx is now generally recognized to be a true bird. Some specimens of this bird are so perfectly fossilized that even the microscopic detail of its feathers is clearly visible. So, having alleged missing links of dinosaurs changing into birds when birds already exist doesn’t help the case for evolution.

For many years Archaeopteryx has been touted in biology textbooks and museums as the perfect transitional fossil, presumably being precisely intermediate between reptiles and birds. Much has been made over the fact that Archaeopteryx had teeth, fingers on its wings, and a long tail—all supposedly proving its reptilian ancestry. While there are no living birds with teeth, other fossilized birds such as Hesperornis also had teeth. Some modern birds, such as the ostrich, have fingers on their wings, and the juvenile hoatzin (a South American bird) has well-developed fingers and toes with which it can climb trees.

Origin of Flight

One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is explaining the origin of flight. To make matters worse, evolutionists believe that the flying birds evolved before the nonflying birds, such as penguins.

The theropod type of dinosaur that is believed to have evolved into flying birds is, to say the least, poorly designed for flight. These dinosaurs have small forelimbs that typically can’t even reach their mouths. It is not clear what theropods, such as the well-known T. rex, did with their tiny front limbs. It is obvious that they didn’t walk, feed, or grasp prey with them, and they surely didn’t fly with them!

Another problem is that this bipedal type of dinosaur had a long heavy tail to balance the weight of a long neck and large head. Decorating such a creature with feathers would hardly suffice to get it off the ground or be of much benefit in any other way.


Having a true bird appear before alleged feathered dinosaurs, no mechanism to change scales into feathers, no mechanism to change a reptilian lung into an avian lung, and no legitimate dinosaurs found with feathers are all good indications that dinosaurs didn’t turn into birds. The evidence is consistent with what the Bible teaches about birds being unique and created after their kinds.

and remember....... Have an Intelligent Faith!!!


Taken from Answers in Genesis, did dinosaurs turn into birds. By David Menton, January 17 2008

Series - "Icons of Evolution, Archaeopteryx: The Missing Link" Part 1

"We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characteristics belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown." evolutionist Pierre Lecomte du Nouy

"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that." evolutionist Dr. Alan Feduccia

I am going to divide the posts about Archaeopteryx into 2 posts. In this post we will look at what it is and some of the features, while the next post we will look at why this NOT an Icon of Evolution.

 Archaeopteryx is the earliest recognized bird that appears in the fossil record. It lived about 150 million years ago. Archaeopteryx possesses both reptilian and birdlike features, providing compelling evidence that birds originally evolved from dinosaurs. It had a head, teeth and claws like a reptile, but a larger brain, feathers and an opposable big toe like birds. Only eight specimens are known, with the first specimen discovered in 1861, two years after Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species. The discovery provided additional evidence that all life forms on Earth ultimately share a common lineage.
Archaeopteryx lived at the same time as a number of feathered dinosaurs, but it was the first to seriously depart from the dinosaur line in terms of anatomy. It is still not agreed upon whether or not Archaeopteryx had the ability to fly, but it almost certainly did glide. Its brain size is sufficient to support the coordination of flight, but its lack of a strong breastbone throws doubt on the hypothesis. Most likely, Archaeopteryx had the ability to run and glide, allowing it to escape from predators more rapidly, and progressively longer gliding eventually evolved into full-fledged flight. Archaeopteryx had no bill, only a mouth covered with sharp teeth. In contrast, no modern bird possesses teeth.
Archaeopteryx was originally discovered under limestone in Germany, and the Berlin museum possesses the best known specimen to this day. The first specimen was merely a feather, discovered in 1861, but full specimens were discovered about every 20 years after that. The first full specimen, known as the "Berlin specimen," was discovered in Germany in 1876.
Archaeopteryx has separated vertebrate, rather than birds which always have fused vertebrate.Archaeopteryx has slender, regular ribs, rather than ribs which articulate outwards at thesternum, as in modern birds. Not all the metacarpals are fused together, as in most birds.Archaeopteryx is fascinating to paleontologists because of the extreme transitional nature of the species.

Next week we will look more in detail about how it's not an Icon.

Strive to have an Intelligent Faith!!

- Nelis

Series - "Icons of Evolution, Haeckel's Embryos, Pt 2"

Last week I posted the topic titled "Haeckel's Embryos". We received a comment stating that I never explained what Ernst Haeckel's theory was. During this post we will be looking at what it was.

Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny Ontogeny: "the development of an individual from a fertilized ovum to maturity, as contrasted with the development of a group or species ( phylogeny )" Recapitulate: (verb)

1. to recap (formal)

2. to repeat stages from the evolution of the species during the embryonic period of an animal's life Phylogeny: (noun) the development over time of a species, genus, or group, as contrasted with the development of an individual ( ontogeny )

Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, also known as "Biogenetic Law" is not a "Law" of Science at all. It is only a theory.

A theory that was proven wrong many years ago.


At the top of this chart you will see how Haeckel drew each embryo. But at the bottom you will see a real picture of what each embryo really looks like.

Haeckel's Biogenetic Law

Haeckel's Biogenetic Law maintains that vertebrate embryos pass through stages in which they exhibit adult features of their evolutionary ancestors. In its most famous example, the law teaches that "gill slits"

in vertebrate embryos reveal their common aquatic ancestry. But human embryos do not really have gills or gill slits: like all vertebrate embryos at one stage in their development, they possess a series of "pharyngeal pouches," or tiny ridges in the neck region. In fish embryos these actually go on to form gills, but in other vertebrates they develop into unrelated structures such as the inner ear and parathyroid gland. The embryos of reptiles, birds and mammals never possess gills. 

Their evolutionary ancestors is false and was already discredited in Darwin's lifetime. Nineteenth-century embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer pointed out that although vertebrate embryos resemble each other at one point in their development, they never resemble the adult of any species, present or past (von Baer 1828; Bowler 1989, 

p. 129). Prominent 20th-century embryologists have 

also criticized the Biogenetic Law: In 1922 Walter Garstang wrote that "the basis of this law is demonstrably unsound," and in 1958 Sir Gavin de Beer called it "a mental strait-jacket which has had lamentable effects on biological progress" (Garstang 1922, 

p. 81; de Beer 1958, p. 172).

Although vertebrate embryos never resemble the adults of any species, it is true that they pass through an intermediate stage in which some of them superficially resemble each other (Haeckel's first stage). 

Looking at development from this intermediate stage onward, von Baer concluded that early embryos exhibit features common to the phylum before developing the distinguishing characteristics of classes, 

genera and species (von Baer 1828). Many 20th-century biologists prefer von Baer's 

interpretation to Haeckel's: Early embryos may not possess ancestral adult structures, but their similarities are interpreted as vestiges of ancestral embryonic features. Since Haeckel's drawings can be used to illustrate von Baer's interpretation as well as Haeckel's, they have survived even though the latter has been discredited. Haeckel's embryos have thus become familiar to generations of biology students. 

Unfortunately, his drawings misrepresent the facts.Strive to have an Intelligent Faith!!!


Series - "Icons of Evolution, Haeckel's Embryos"

Darwin knew that the Cambrian fossil record was a serious problem for his theory.

"It seems to me,"

Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species,

"the leading facts in embryology, which are second to none in importance, are explained on the principle of variations in the many descendants from some one ancient progenitor."

Similarities in early embryos not only demonstrate that they are descended from a common ancestor, but also reveal what that ancestor looked like. Darwin considered this

"by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of"

his theory. Darwin was not an embryologist, so he relied for his evidence on the work of others. One of those was German biologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species that Professor Haeckel

"brought his great knowledge and abilities to bear on what he calls phylogeny, or the lines of descent of all organic beings. In drawing up the several series he trusts chiefly to embryological characters."

Haeckel made many drawings, but his most famous were of early vertebrate embryos. Haeckel drew embryos from various classes of vertebrates to show that they are virtually identical in their earliest stages, and become noticeably different only as they develop.

Haeckel's embryos seem to provide such powerful evidence for Darwin's theory that some version of them can be found in almost every modern textbook dealing with evolution.

Yet biologists have known for over a century that Haeckel faked his drawings;

vertebrate embryos never look as similar as he made them out to be. Furthermore, the stage Haeckel labeled the "first" is actually midway through development; the similarities he exaggerated are preceded by striking differences in earlier stages of development. Although you might never know it from reading biology textbooks, Darwin's "strongest single class of facts"

is a classic example of how evidence can be twisted to fit a theory


Haeckel produced many drawings of vertebrate embryos to illustrate his biogenetic law. The drawings show vertebrate embryos that look very much alike at their earliest stage. In fact, the embryos look too much alike. According to historian Jane Oppenheimer, Haeckel's

"hand as an artist altered what he saw with what should have been the eye of a more accurate beholder. He was more than once, often justifiably, accused of scientific falsification, by Wilhelm His and many others."

In some cases,

Haeckel used the same woodcut to print embryos

that were supposedly from different classes. In others, he doctored his drawings to make the embryos appear more alike than they really were. Haeckel's contemporaries repeatedly criticized him for these misrepresentations, and charges of fraud abounded in his lifetime. 


So why is it still in biology text books? Just one more example of how evolution is forced down our throats with so much evidence showing something else. Don't be misled, find the truth for yourself and remember...

Have an Intelligent Faith!!

- Nelis

Series - "Icons of Evolution, Homology in Vertebrate Limbs"

For centuries scientists have noticed that different organisms may share remarkable similarities. For example: a butterfly have wings for flying just like bats, but the 2 animals are very different in the way they are constructed. Another kind of similarity is structural: The pattern of bones in a bat's wing is similar to that in a porpoise's flipper, though the wing is used for flying and the flipper is used for swimming.


the 1840s British anatomist Richard Owen called the first kind of similarity "analogy," and the second kind "homology". Analogy suggests independent adaptations to external conditions, while homology suggests deeper structural affinities.

Homology was considered a more reliable guide in grouping organisms together in families, orders, classes and phyla. classic examples of homologous structures are the forelimbs of vertebrates (animals with backbones).

 Although a bat has wings for flying, a porpoise has flippers for swimming, a horse has legs for running, and a human has hands for grasping, the bone patterns in their forelimbs are similar. Such skeletal similarities, along with other internal affinities such as warm-bloodedness and milk production, justify classifying all these creatures as mammals despite their external differences.

In The Origin of Species Darwin argued that the best explanation for homology is descent with modification.

"If we suppose that an early progenitor-the archetype as it may be called-of all mammals, birds and reptiles, had its limbs constructed on the existing pattern,"

then "the similar framework of bones in the hand of a man, wing of a bat, fin of the porpoise, and leg of the horse... at once explain themselves on the theory of descent with slow and slight modifications."

Darwin considered homology important evidence for evolution, listing it among the facts which "proclaim so plainly, that the innumerable species, genera and families, with which this world is peopled, are all descended, each within its own class or group, from common parents." The link between homology and common descent was so central to Darwin's theory that his followers actually re-defined homology to mean features inherited from a common ancestor. Even after homology was re-defined, however, the Darwinian account remained incomplete without a mechanism to explain why homologous features were so similar in such different organisms. When neo-Darwinism arose in the 1930s and 1940s, it seemed to have a solution to this problem:

Homologous features were attributed to similar genes inherited from a common ancestor.

Modern Darwinists continue to use homology as evidence for their theory. In fact, next to the Darwinian tree of life, homology in vertebrate limbs is probably the most common icon of evolution in biology textbooks

But the icon conceals two serious problems:

First, if homology is defined as similarity due to common descent, then it is circular reasoning to use it as evidence for common descent.

Second, biologists have known for decades that homologous features are not due to similar genes, so the mechanism that produces them remains unknown.

Next week we will be looking at these 2 problems. 

Research the evidence, find the TRUTH and remember.....

Have an Intelligent Faith!!


Parts taken from 

Jonathan Wells. Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong