Jump to content


Photo

Shocking New Evidence Of Our Evolutionary Past!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
20 replies to this topic

#1 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 12 March 2010 - 01:24 PM

The goat woman: Chinese grandmother, 101, grows mystery horn on forehead:

An elderly Chinese woman has stunned her family and fellow villagers by growing from her forehead a horn than resembles a goat’s.
Grandmother Zhang Ruifang, 101, of Linlou village, Henan province, began developing the mysterious protrusion last year.
Since then it has grown 2.4in in length and another now appears to emerging on the other side of the mother of seven’s forehead.

Posted Image

Bizarre: Zhang Ruifang began growing a horn last year. It is now 2.4in long

The condition has left her family baffled and worried.
Her youngest of six sons, Zhang Guozheng, 60, said when a patch of rough skin formed on her forehead last year ‘we didn't pay too much attention to it’.
‘But as time went on a horn grew out of her head and it is now 6cm long,' added Mr Zhang, whose eldest brother and sibling is 82 years old.
‘Now something is also growing on the right side of her forehead. It’s quite possible that it’s another horn.’

Although, it is unknown what the protrusion is on Mrs Zhang’s head, it resembles a cutaneous horn.
This is a funnel-shaped growth and although most are only a few millimetres in length, some can extend a number of inches from the skin.
Cutaneous horns are made up of compacted keratin, which is the same protein we have in our hair and nails, and forms horns, wool and feathers in animals.

They usually develop in fair-skinned elderly adults who have a history of significant sun exposure but it is extremely unusual to see it form protrusions of this size.

The growths are most common in elderly people, aged between 60 and the mid-70s. They can sometimes be cancerous but more than half of cases are benign.

Common underlying causes of cutaneous horns are common warts, skin cancer and actinic keratoses, patches of scaly skin that develop on skin exposed to the sun, such as your face, scalp or forearms.
Cutaneous horns can be removed surgically but this does not treat the underlying cause.


More here:

Posted Image

and here:

Posted Image

Observe her clearly animalistic reaction to the chunk of flesh in her paws!

What more will it take for ignorant, stubborn YECs like myself to see the light? This is solid evidence of our common ancestory with goats, elk or perhaps some other horned creature. What we have here is a case of atavistic horns - and I have every assurance that it will cast new light on our animal heritage.

No doubt evolutionists the world over are hard at work reworking evolutionary theory to accommodate this shocking new evidence. What will our family tree look like after the dust settles?

:D

#2 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 March 2010 - 01:50 PM

Cutaneous horns are acquired due to radiation. They are not genetic and can appear anywhere over the head and arms.

#3 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 March 2010 - 02:22 PM

I don't see what this has to do with evolution -- or at the very least, evolution wouldn't suggest an ancestry of "horned creatures", given that the 'horn' here doesn't have at all the same inner makeup as that of a goat, elk, or what have you. It just looks sort of similar from the outside.

#4 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 March 2010 - 04:50 PM

Cutaneous horns are acquired due to radiation.  They are not genetic and can appear anywhere over the head and arms.

View Post


Can you prove this?

And this is not genetic? That's weird. Because if their were offspring after this, they would have those genes passed. After all, is that not how evolution works? Or is this accepted only when it supports evolution?

Like the human tail claim:

Posted Image

This is accepted because it supports evolution and is claimed to be genetic for the same reason.

The horns, which are the same type of growth, is rejected because it does not support evolution. And therefore is rejected as being genetic as well.

I don't see what this has to do with evolution -- or at the very least, evolution wouldn't suggest an ancestry of "horned creatures",


Proving that "all" evidence has to support evolution before it is accpeted.

given that the 'horn' here doesn't have at all the same inner makeup as that of a goat, elk, or what have you. It just looks sort of similar from the outside.


Neither does the human tail. In fact it more aupports being a tumor more than anything else.

#5 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 March 2010 - 05:41 PM

This man shares a recent common ancestor with a spruce tree. :D

Posted Image

A Russian man who was coughing up blood and complaining of chest pains was found to have this 5 centimeter spruce tree growing inside his lung। Since the tree was too large to have been accidentally inhaled, doctors believe the man must have inhaled a bud which grew inside the lung.



#6 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 12 March 2010 - 07:20 PM

I don't see what this has to do with evolution -- or at the very least, evolution wouldn't suggest an ancestry of "horned creatures", given that the 'horn' here doesn't have at all the same inner makeup as that of a goat, elk, or what have you.  It just looks sort of similar from the outside.

View Post

Well, I guess my sarcasm didn't come through very well in the post.:D I surely don't think this has anything to do with evolution and I don't expect evolutionists do make much of it either.

As to the fact 'that the 'horn' here doesn't have at all the same inner makeup as that of a goat, elk, or what have you. It just looks sort of similar from the outside', much the same can be said of the putative 'vestigial tails' in humans (see other thread, starting at this post). From CMI's article Human Tails and Fairy Tales, referring to a Talk.Origins page on the subject (see also linked thread above):

In fact that x-ray shows a normal healthy spine, as admitted in the original research paper by Bar-Maor et al. from which that x-ray image (Figure 3 in the paper) was taken. Doubtless other readers of that webpage will have gained the same incorrect impression that you (and I, at first) got, namely that there exist people whose coccyxes (or ‘tailbones’) are longer than normal and form the core of a protruding and movable appendage, i.e. a functioning tail. This turned out not to be the case. And as a modern embryology textbook notes, ‘Rarely a caudal appendage is found at birth. Such structures are of varied origin (some are teratomata); they practically never contain skeletal elements and are in no sense tails.’

[...]

Both the TalkOrigins webpage and the original Bar-Meor paper promulgate the false idea that in the womb people have an ‘embryonic tail’. The correct term for the structure in question is the caudal eminence. They claim it contains extra somites (the embryo's bead-like somites are precursors to several different structures, including vertebrae) and that if these continued growing instead of degenerating and getting reabsorbed that they would develop into extra tail bones, adding to the regular three to five coccygeal vertebrae that develop normally. They thus call these features ‘coccygeal somites’. But since they do not develop, it is pure evolution-inspired supposition to presume to know what they would develop into, and to label them ‘coccygeal’. As one modern human embryology textbook puts it, ‘Supernumerary vertebral centra that would later degenerate are not present and hence no tail exists’ and ‘the caudal tip of the trunk appears particularly tapered at 5 weeks, because it contains merely neural tube, but is in no sense a (future) vertebrated “tail”.’ Only three to five bones have ever been recorded in the human coccyx.

While it's no surprise that sites like Talk.Origins would peddle this drivel, respectable sites like LiveScience heartily join the fun by including the human 'tailbone' in a slideshow on vestigial organs (it's #7), claiming that:

These fused vertebrae are the only vestiges that are left of the tail that other mammals still use for balance, communication, and in some primates, as a prehensile limb. As our ancestors were learning to walk upright, their tail became useless, and it slowly disappeared.

Though, as Bex points out some prominent evolutionists like Eugenie Scott do know better and they say so when asked about it.

In any case, the prominent cases of fraud that litter the history of evolutionary science show that facts, biological and otherwise, have not been much of an impediment to evolutionists in the past; why should they worry about it now?

I say atavisitic horns could breath new life into the moribund 'vestigial organs' meme and reinvigorate the cause! Onward and upward! :P (that was more sarcasm :D )

This man shares a recent common ancestor with a spruce tree. :)

Posted Image

View Post

That is just awful :D

#7 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 March 2010 - 07:49 PM

Can you prove this?


Yes, the occurance of such features correlates with many years daily exposure to the Sun.

And this is not genetic? That's weird. Because if their were offspring after this, they would have those genes passed.


If the trait isn't genetic then it wouldn't be passed on through heredity.

After all, is that not how evolution works?


No, of course it isn't.

Or is this accepted only when it supports evolution?

Like the human tail claim:

Posted Image

View Post


The vestigial tails were present at birth and covered in skin (contrast with cutaneous horns). The tails might be some result of hitherto unknown factors of in utero development. However, they are far more likely to be genetic throwbacks and thus are yet further support for the predictions of the ToE.

#8 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 13 March 2010 - 07:37 AM

I don't see what this has to do with evolution -- or at the very least, evolution wouldn't suggest an ancestry of "horned creatures", given that the 'horn' here doesn't have at all the same inner makeup as that of a goat, elk, or what have you.  It just looks sort of similar from the outside.

View Post

It has to do with homology. Evolutionists judge because things look similar. Like genes. Like bones. Because two genes look alike they are considered as inherited. Not anything to do the fact that they make the same functional necessary protein. Because two genes are fused in the same place, they are inherited. No possibility of past retro-viral activity in species. No possibility of deletions caused by the precluded fall of man, which changed conditions of creation. No possibility of another purpose such as readable programming for transcribed/ translated enzymes or proteins (i.e. how do they 'know' what to do, or where to go?). No possibility that transcription enzymes might read introns and fused areas in the DNA in order to somehow program the resulting proteins.

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 March 2010 - 08:33 PM

Yes, the occurance of such features correlates with many years daily exposure to the Sun.
If the trait isn't genetic then it wouldn't be passed on through heredity.
No, of course it isn't.
The vestigial tails were present at birth and covered in skin (contrast with cutaneous horns).  The tails might be some result of hitherto unknown factors of in utero development.  However, they are far more likely to be genetic throwbacks and thus are yet further support for the predictions of the ToE.

View Post


Your whole post just demonstrated what I had just said. If it supports the ideas of evolution, it's accepted as a process of evolution. If it don't, it won't. So evidence nor has to conform to the theory instead of the evidence directing the conclusions. Something creationists have known for a while.

#10 Fedora

Fedora

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 15
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • California

Posted 15 March 2010 - 09:35 PM

Your whole post just demonstrated what I had just said. If it supports the ideas of evolution, it's accepted as a process of evolution. If it don't, it won't. So evidence nor has to conform to the theory instead of the evidence directing the conclusions. Something creationists have known for a while.

View Post


A horn is likely the result of exposure to the sun. A tail is not. And, you don't see the difference here, and how the difference relates to these occurrences relations to the Theory of Evolution?

#11 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 15 March 2010 - 10:28 PM

A horn is likely the result of exposure to the sun. A tail is not. And, you don't see the difference here, and how the difference relates to these occurrences relations to the Theory of Evolution?

View Post


This is the explanation given here:

Posted Image

Once thought to be a myth, the incidence of human being growing “horns” is now documented. These cutaneous horns, also called cornu cutaneum are actually skin lesions, which cone-shaped protuberances grow from, creating the appearance of a horn.


Why are so many other conditions of abnormal overgrowths seen as genuine medical problems/mishaps, yet a tail-like overgrowth is seen otherwise?

Even some notable evolutionists reject this claim, yet so many others still continue pushing it.

Take a look at the pictures and explanations in this link below: http://www.zimbio.co...an Growths Time

Note how in most instances, such overgrowths are given a medical explanation.

So whilst we see the tail-like appendages hanging there near the end of the spine, you got the other pictures showing similar up the other end, yet STILL they're attributed to the tale/tail of our past.

Posted Image

Mostly thought to be a myth, there are stories about people who have tails. While evolution has eliminated that trait for most of us, these rare pictures show that some are still born with small tails, which are an extension of the spine.


If you look at the pictures, you see the appendage hanging there slightly off to the left side of the lower back. Not quite in the right place that one would expect a genuine tail to be.

Irrespective, the Xray appears to show the bones already INSIDE the body. What about the appendage itself?

We see an explanation here also of so-called "tails" in some human beings:

http://www.jesus-is-...om/evoltail.txt

  In the May 20, 1982 issue of _The New England Journal of Medicine_,
Dr. Fred Ledley, M.D. presented a clinical case report titled "Evolution
and the Human Tail."  Ledley's report concerned a baby born with a two
inch long fleshy growth on it's back, bearing a superficial resemblance
to a tail.  Ledley strongly implied that this growth (called a caudal
appendage) was essentially a "human tail," though he admitted that it
had virtually none of the distinctive biological characteristics of a
tail!

All true tails have bones in them that are a posterior extension of
the vertebral column.  Also, all true tails have muscles associated with
their vertebrae which permit some movement of the tail.  Ledley conceded
that there has never been a single documented case of an animal tail
lacking these distinctive features, nor has there been a single case of
a human caudal appendage having any of these features.  In fact, the
caudal appendage Ledley described is merely a fatty outgrowth of skin
that wasn't located in the right place on the back to be a tail!  Still,
Ledley saw his caudal appendage as providing compelling proof for the
evolution of man from our monkey-like ancestors.


When one is already convinced that we came from monkey-like ancestors and we all had tails, then any overgrowth giving superficial semblence to such will be jumped on, even one growing out the upper end of the back looking more like a big skin coloured worm doesn't put them off either.

#12 Fedora

Fedora

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 15
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • California

Posted 15 March 2010 - 10:43 PM

Bex : Because horn like protrusions have been shown to be attained from prolonged exposure to the sun. The other example you mention, the tail like protrusions, have not been shown to have an environmental origin / cause.

#13 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 15 March 2010 - 10:46 PM

Bex : Because horn like protrusions have been shown to be attained from prolonged exposure to the sun. The other example you mention, the tail like protrusions, have not been shown to have an environmental origin / cause.

View Post


Federa, did you not check out the link and information on all the pictures? The reasons for these overgrowths do not all stem from 'external' causes, but rather, often, internal. They are excessive and unusual overgrowths due mostly to internal medical mishaps/conditions.

#14 Fedora

Fedora

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 15
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • California

Posted 15 March 2010 - 11:02 PM

I saw the pictures, I was unable to take a look at the links, however, as J am currently on my phone, as I am on a bus at the moment, and I hope to look at them later when I am in a situation more suited for elongated reading. I apologize for the inconvenience.

However, glancing exclusivly at the part about the horns, and the related links, one is possibly a hormone imbalance, and two are possibly related to skin cancer. I don't entirely see the point of this? These could, save for possibly the first one, have been completely environmental from what I read.

#15 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 16 March 2010 - 01:30 AM

I saw the pictures, I was unable to take a look at the links, however, as J am currently on my phone, as I am on a bus at the moment, and I hope to look at them later when I am in a situation more suited for elongated reading. I apologize for the inconvenience.

However, glancing exclusivly at the part about the horns, and the related links, one is possibly a hormone imbalance, and two are possibly related to skin cancer. I don't entirely see the point of this? These could, save for possibly the first one, have been completely environmental from what I read.

View Post


No need to apologise. I quite understand.

If/when you do get time and a better position to take a look, you will see that rare overgrowths are not usually "environmental" problems, but rather genetic conditions, tumors, lesions, abnormalities in veins/capilleries, rare diseases, are amongst some of the causes etc.

I'll give you the link again:

http://www.zimbio.co...an Growths Time

The point of this? It is to show that such abnormal overgrowths can happen anywhere on the human body. They are rare medical condition/problem, rather than advantageous in anyway. The tail overgrowths are evidentally no exception, unless you can find where they are functional, genuine tails and serve any purpose?

http://www.yecheadqu...g/shame.29.html

Most of the reported "tails" are little more than fatty tissue with no vertebrae. Even if there are bony segments within the appendage, it still relates to genetic mistakes (e.g., certain genes relating to the development of the vertebrae column are erroneously replicated too many times during the developmental process, which results in an artificial "tail" like structure).


Whether actual bone or fatty tissue, it is an abnormal overgrowth, i.e. tumor related/genetic error (over replication), as with a number of the other examples displayed in the link earlier.

http://creation.com/...and-fairy-tales

Such structures are of varied origin (some are teratomata); they practically never contain skeletal elements and are in no sense tails.’
Caudal appendages occur in around 1 to 3 people per thousand. Most consist of skin and fatty tissue, and are located 1.5 centimetres from the midline of the back. Many are removed surgically shortly after birth.


The x-ray that appears on the TalkOrigins webpage is of Child 3, who had a healthy, well developed coccyx. Being soft tissue, Child 3’s benign caudal appendage does not appear in the x-ray, except perhaps to the trained expert eye. What does appear is the normal healthy coccyx, albeit of only three bones—most of us have four coccygeal vertebrae; a few percent of people have five and a few percent have three.4


To interpret the rare overgrowth of fatty tissue or abnormal bone replication as evidence of an evolutionary past with tails does not appear to have any real basis in fact.

#16 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 16 March 2010 - 09:00 PM

A horn is likely the result of exposure to the sun. A tail is not. And, you don't see the difference here, and how the difference relates to these occurrences relations to the Theory of Evolution?

View Post


1) The tail support evolution, therefore is accepted.
2) The horn does not, therefore is rejected.

This is how every evidence is gauged.

If not, can you provide any evidence that is "accepted" that did not support anything to do with evolution? The reason is because not everything can support evolution. But because some things don't, it's not even considered any type of evidence. Which proves that all evidence most conform or be rejected.

#17 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 16 March 2010 - 09:32 PM

If not, can you provide any evidence that is "accepted" that did not support anything to do with evolution?


"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" - (Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1973)


Need I say more? :rolleyes:

#18 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 17 March 2010 - 12:14 AM

Here is an interesting video.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.c...></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.c...hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

#19 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 18 March 2010 - 09:36 AM

1) The tail support evolution, therefore is accepted.
2) The horn does not, therefore is rejected.

This is how every evidence is gauged.

View Post

Say it aint so! My favorite example of this is homology vs. analogy (i.e. common ancestory vs. convergent evolution). Here are the definitions & differences, courtesy of Berkeley's 'Understanding Evolution website:

Similarities and differences: understanding homology and analogy
by the Understanding Evolution team

In everyday life, people look like one another for different reasons. Two sisters, for example, might look alike because they both inherited brown eyes and black hair from their father. On the other hand, two people attending an Elvis impersonators' convention may look alike because they are both wearing rhinestone studded suits and long sideburns. The similarity between the sisters is inherited, but the similarity between the Elvis impersonators is not.

Posted Image

Note that the example they use is one that can be verified independently of whatever you believe beforehand to be the case. While it exemplifies the general principal, you cannot take the logic used here and apply it to the evolutionary question at hand; their illustration is completely irrelevant. In other words, t's a bad analogy - pun intended. <_<

Dr. Jerry Bergman, in his paper on the subject, Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism?, puts it succintly:

Homology also does not prove that a set of animals is related by descent because both similarities and differences exist for any two animal types, and traits often are chosen by evolutionists only because they seem to provide evidence that two animals are related. The only criterion that was used by Darwinists to select examples of homology was: 'Does the example support what is assumed to be an evolutionary relationship?' Other examples are ignored or explained away. This fact is so well recognized, and so many examples exist that contradict the explanation of common descent, that evolutionists have attempted to separate most putative examples of homology into two types: analogy and homology. The division is based on a distinction between similarity due to common ancestry, or homology, and resemblance which is due solely to similarity of function, called analogy. An example is the forelimbs of humans, horses, whales and birds which are judged homologous because

...they are all constructed on the same pattern, and include similar bones in the same relative positions because these are all derived from the same ancestral bones. The wings of birds and insects, on the other hand, are analogous: they serve the same purpose, but do not constitute modified versions of a structure present in a common ancestor. The wings of birds and bats are homologous in skeletal structure because of descent from the forelimb of a common reptilian ancestor; but they are analogous in terms of their modification for flight—feathers in birds, skin membranes in bats.

~Berry, R.J. and Hallam, A., The Encyclopedia of Animal Evolution, Facts on File, New York, 1987, p. 82.


In other words, if a design similarity supports evolutionary assumptions, it is listed as an homology and is accepted as evidence for evolution. Conversely, if a design similarity does not support evolution, it is called analogy, and the conclusion is drawn that the similarity exists because a certain design is highly functional for a specific body part, and not because of a common ancestor. Many analogous structures are assumed to exist due to convergent evolution, which is defined as the separate evolution of similar structures because of similar environmental demands. Convergent evolution also is used to explain similar structures that have formed from different embryo structures or precursors.

The only way to make a logical argument distinguishing between homology and analogy is if the presumption of evolution/common ancestory is incorporated into your argument as one of its premises. Of course, this simply begs the question.

I think ReMine's treatment of this issue in his book, The Biotic Message, is far superior. The two premises of his Message Theory are

1. Life was designed to look like the product of a single designer.
2. Life was designed to resist all other explanations.

I think the homology/analogy/convergence connundrum in evolutionary theory illustrates illustrates the strength of Message Theory.

#20 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 March 2010 - 11:52 AM

The tails are very probably genetic and thus directly relevant to evolution. The horns are certainly aquired and are thus irrelevant.

Similar morphological structures in different species can be explained by common ancestry, convergent evolution or a combination of both. Common ancestry can be inferred from patterns of a number of shared morphological traits and comparison of DNA sequences (when studying extant species) and then the structure can confidently be credited to homology.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users