Is the Theory of Evolution Still Trust Worthy ? in terms of the homologyHomolog structure is a structure that is similar to a relatively different functions . The question is very clear in this case is why it is so similar the structure ? . Biological evolution explains that because of the similarity of the biological character and they earn comes from the same ancestor .
Before I answer this question , I will first explain what it is homology . Because I 'm sure not everyone knows this term unless they have studied at the Department of Evolutionary Biology . Most people know the theory of evolution is only skin deep , because it's a glimpse studied in high school . Although only know the skin , many believe this theory as a scientific truth .
The term of this homology appears typological morphology from an expert , Richard Owen . He defines homology , " as the same organ in different animals with different shapes and functions " . Further into use in the 18th century , by an expert in the life sciences , Comte Buffon . When he compared the morphology of anatomical structures between horses , donkeys , and zebras . Homology ranks second on the evidence of evolution as indicated by John W. Kimball , the book Biology Volume 3 ( pp. 764 ) . Meanwhile, Neil A. Campbell in the same title , placing it in third place ( pp. 16 ) .
Kimball stated , that , " Diversity forelimb of mammals is an example of homologous organs . This is not so surprising given the "trust " us that all organisms at a time in the history of evolution has the same ancestor " . I write deliberately skewed the word "trust " , simply shows that the descendants of a common ancestor turned out to be just a belief , not based on scientific evidence . As a belief , of course there are receiving , there is also a reject . I am among those who refused , of course with a myriad number of reasons which I will explain .
Then , what about the homology evidence proffered by both biology textbook was taught in college ? I think it's not evidence , even Ernst Mayr himself that in fact a scientist involved in mating Mendelian genetics with Darwin's theory of evolution in his book What Evoluton is ( p 36 ) mentions that , " homology is not evidence , homology is the result of drawing conclusions " .
Structural homology Organ
Now let's see , why evolutionists to conclude that way . One of the characteristics of homologous exemplified above is homology morphology , namely the structure of the organs of the front legs . In addition to organ homology , there are actually other homologies are actually interesting to discuss as homologous to the embryonic level and the molecular level . But according question , this paper will limit itself to the homologous organs .
Structure homologous organs in the picture above is to compare the structure of an organ ( for example ) on the front of the leg between humans , cats , whales and bats . Organs that have the same basic structure , but the organs are used for different purposes . In humans used to lift , cat for walks , whale to swim , and bats to fly . According to them that the same organ that is believed to come from a common ancestor . Change only the modification function of adaptation to the specific needs of the organism .
What they call the same actually false . Now let us consider , how do they determine that four members of the body is the same organ ? Is it true that they have evolved from a common ancestor ?
To prove whether they come from the same lineage or not , is actually very easy . Evolutionists ( should ) be able to prove through fossil findings with the sequence of the common ancestor to the present kebentuknya . In fact , to this day transitional fossils that no one has been found . No transitional fossils , evolutionists usually be justified because it is damaged , lost and decomposed by natural processes . I do not like it melilhatnya .
Let's look at one species of 4 species than in the example above , the ( fish ) Pope . These animals have ancestors who came from the land, such as bears . These animals evolved from land to sea plunged into . I think it's impossible , why ?
Research conducted by Alistain Evans and his team from Monash University , published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 's concluded that the evolution of whales from land to water it took 12 million generations . This is very much a transitional form from only one type of animal that eventually whale products . It's hard to imagine how thick the layers of the earth by the fossil piles . If this transition does happen , of course it is very easy to find a transitional fossil forms from the pile . In fact , one was not successful transition fossils found by paleontologists . Instead , the fossils were found in a state it is already complete with his trademark traits . Fossils are no longer found in the soil layers older . This fact is proved by the very obvious fact that the organism is created and not the result of the transition from other forms of organisms .
If Evolved
Now , let us suppose that the pope actually evolved from earlier life on land (a type of bear ) , then moved to the water . Approximately what portion organs evolved first ? Perhaps , legs or arms originally had claws will change start to have a bit of membranes ; previously protected her thick hair began to diminish and disappear , and many other changes . The question is whether the form of the initial changes that it works well on the organism ? Of course not functioning . A small change is certainly not a virtue , but a loss for the existence of these animals . Well , imagine the thick fur that he needs in the cold air , which incidentally still live on land actually even reduced . Claws that he uses to survive against natural enemies , it becomes overgrown membrane . His legs , little by little began to disappear that it is still needed when he lived on land .
Small changes ( micro mutation ) is clearly very detrimental to the survival of these animals . How could something that is not useful in the early stages of development can continue to thrive , let alone absorbed into the genetic information that is passed on from generation to generation ? Let alone thrive , survive was difficult .
Homology was Moot
How can we prove that the members of the body mentioned in some species it is considered the same organ ? . The equation is simply false , myth , because if further investigated organs were derived from different materials . Even if considered together just shows the presence of the same Designer , the existence of the Creator . Creation is the domain of Religion , a belief certainly does not deserve to be debated . Just a theory evolusilah eligible to be debated , whether or not " scientific theory " it .
Now let us suppose again . If homology forelimb organ considered as evidence for evolution . What other organs such as the eye . Human and octopus eyes are very similar organs , the same . Why do evolutionists do not call it a homologous organs . Why do evolutionists do not consider humans and octopuses have a common ancestor ? Then , how homology to the wing structure in some species , such as insects , birds , etc. . How do they explain the evolutionary mechanism of the formation of these organs ? Of course they will be confused .
Finally , something that can not be proven , but it can conclude that the homology as evidence for evolution is not thinking scientists .
Before I answer this question , I will first explain what it is homology . Because I 'm sure not everyone knows this term unless they have studied at the Department of Evolutionary Biology . Most people know the theory of evolution is only skin deep , because it's a glimpse studied in high school . Although only know the skin , many believe this theory as a scientific truth .
The term of this homology appears typological morphology from an expert , Richard Owen . He defines homology , " as the same organ in different animals with different shapes and functions " . Further into use in the 18th century , by an expert in the life sciences , Comte Buffon . When he compared the morphology of anatomical structures between horses , donkeys , and zebras . Homology ranks second on the evidence of evolution as indicated by John W. Kimball , the book Biology Volume 3 ( pp. 764 ) . Meanwhile, Neil A. Campbell in the same title , placing it in third place ( pp. 16 ) .
Kimball stated , that , " Diversity forelimb of mammals is an example of homologous organs . This is not so surprising given the "trust " us that all organisms at a time in the history of evolution has the same ancestor " . I write deliberately skewed the word "trust " , simply shows that the descendants of a common ancestor turned out to be just a belief , not based on scientific evidence . As a belief , of course there are receiving , there is also a reject . I am among those who refused , of course with a myriad number of reasons which I will explain .
Then , what about the homology evidence proffered by both biology textbook was taught in college ? I think it's not evidence , even Ernst Mayr himself that in fact a scientist involved in mating Mendelian genetics with Darwin's theory of evolution in his book What Evoluton is ( p 36 ) mentions that , " homology is not evidence , homology is the result of drawing conclusions " .
Structural homology Organ
Now let's see , why evolutionists to conclude that way . One of the characteristics of homologous exemplified above is homology morphology , namely the structure of the organs of the front legs . In addition to organ homology , there are actually other homologies are actually interesting to discuss as homologous to the embryonic level and the molecular level . But according question , this paper will limit itself to the homologous organs .
Structure homologous organs in the picture above is to compare the structure of an organ ( for example ) on the front of the leg between humans , cats , whales and bats . Organs that have the same basic structure , but the organs are used for different purposes . In humans used to lift , cat for walks , whale to swim , and bats to fly . According to them that the same organ that is believed to come from a common ancestor . Change only the modification function of adaptation to the specific needs of the organism .
What they call the same actually false . Now let us consider , how do they determine that four members of the body is the same organ ? Is it true that they have evolved from a common ancestor ?
To prove whether they come from the same lineage or not , is actually very easy . Evolutionists ( should ) be able to prove through fossil findings with the sequence of the common ancestor to the present kebentuknya . In fact , to this day transitional fossils that no one has been found . No transitional fossils , evolutionists usually be justified because it is damaged , lost and decomposed by natural processes . I do not like it melilhatnya .
Let's look at one species of 4 species than in the example above , the ( fish ) Pope . These animals have ancestors who came from the land, such as bears . These animals evolved from land to sea plunged into . I think it's impossible , why ?
Research conducted by Alistain Evans and his team from Monash University , published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 's concluded that the evolution of whales from land to water it took 12 million generations . This is very much a transitional form from only one type of animal that eventually whale products . It's hard to imagine how thick the layers of the earth by the fossil piles . If this transition does happen , of course it is very easy to find a transitional fossil forms from the pile . In fact , one was not successful transition fossils found by paleontologists . Instead , the fossils were found in a state it is already complete with his trademark traits . Fossils are no longer found in the soil layers older . This fact is proved by the very obvious fact that the organism is created and not the result of the transition from other forms of organisms .
If Evolved
Now , let us suppose that the pope actually evolved from earlier life on land (a type of bear ) , then moved to the water . Approximately what portion organs evolved first ? Perhaps , legs or arms originally had claws will change start to have a bit of membranes ; previously protected her thick hair began to diminish and disappear , and many other changes . The question is whether the form of the initial changes that it works well on the organism ? Of course not functioning . A small change is certainly not a virtue , but a loss for the existence of these animals . Well , imagine the thick fur that he needs in the cold air , which incidentally still live on land actually even reduced . Claws that he uses to survive against natural enemies , it becomes overgrown membrane . His legs , little by little began to disappear that it is still needed when he lived on land .
Small changes ( micro mutation ) is clearly very detrimental to the survival of these animals . How could something that is not useful in the early stages of development can continue to thrive , let alone absorbed into the genetic information that is passed on from generation to generation ? Let alone thrive , survive was difficult .
Homology was Moot
How can we prove that the members of the body mentioned in some species it is considered the same organ ? . The equation is simply false , myth , because if further investigated organs were derived from different materials . Even if considered together just shows the presence of the same Designer , the existence of the Creator . Creation is the domain of Religion , a belief certainly does not deserve to be debated . Just a theory evolusilah eligible to be debated , whether or not " scientific theory " it .
Now let us suppose again . If homology forelimb organ considered as evidence for evolution . What other organs such as the eye . Human and octopus eyes are very similar organs , the same . Why do evolutionists do not call it a homologous organs . Why do evolutionists do not consider humans and octopuses have a common ancestor ? Then , how homology to the wing structure in some species , such as insects , birds , etc. . How do they explain the evolutionary mechanism of the formation of these organs ? Of course they will be confused .
Finally , something that can not be proven , but it can conclude that the homology as evidence for evolution is not thinking scientists .
Lebih Menarik Lagi:
0 Comments