Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Homologous structures/genes and evolution

NothingSpecial99
Posts: 378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 9:02:23 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Homologous structures and genes are often touted as indisputable evidence of evolution. Anyone who has taken a high school biology class are probably familiar with this argument. According to evolutionists, homologous structures such as skeletal components of vertebrates

http://www.bio.miami.edu...

are evidence
that such organisms share a common ancestor which the theory of evolution predicts. However, the argument itself is perched on flawed logic. The logical fallacy the argument is guilty of is affirming the consequent. Affirming the consequent can be technically mapped as such:

Premise 1: If P, then Q
Premise 2: Q
Conclusion: Therefore P

However, the problem can be better seen with such arguments if I provide an example.

Premise 1: If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich
Premise 2: Bill Gates is rich
Conclusion: Therefore Bill Gates owns Fort Knox

Despite the premises being true, the problem is that Bill Gates owning Fort Knox is not the only sufficient condition to be rich as in reality, Bill Gates is rich for running one of the largest tech companies in the world. Now I map out the argument that evolutionists often use with homologous structures.

Premise 1: If evolution is true, then seemingly different organisms will have homologous structures/genes
Premise 2: Homologous structures/genes exist
Conclusion: Therefore, evolution is true.

This doesn"t mean that the argument should be thrown out entirely, at least not yet. The argument would hold if the evolutionist proves that evolution is the only sufficient condition for these homologous structures/genes. The burden that most evolutionists that I"ve encountered fail to fulfill is disproving the alternative, common design. Proponents of ID and biblical creation such as myself point out that such structures/genes can be the product of an intelligent designer.

What do you guys think?
"Check your facts, not your privilege" - Christina Hoff Summers

If you go to jail for Tax Evasion, you're living off of Taxes as a result of not paying Taxes

"Facts don't care about your feelings" - Ben Shapiro
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 9:29:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 9:02:23 PM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Homologous structures and genes are often touted as indisputable evidence of evolution. Anyone who has taken a high school biology class are probably familiar with this argument. According to evolutionists, homologous structures such as skeletal components of vertebrates

http://www.bio.miami.edu...

are evidence
that such organisms share a common ancestor which the theory of evolution predicts. However, the argument itself is perched on flawed logic. The logical fallacy the argument is guilty of is affirming the consequent. Affirming the consequent can be technically mapped as such:

Premise 1: If P, then Q
Premise 2: Q
Conclusion: Therefore P

However, the problem can be better seen with such arguments if I provide an example.

Premise 1: If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich
Premise 2: Bill Gates is rich
Conclusion: Therefore Bill Gates owns Fort Knox

Despite the premises being true, the problem is that Bill Gates owning Fort Knox is not the only sufficient condition to be rich as in reality, Bill Gates is rich for running one of the largest tech companies in the world. Now I map out the argument that evolutionists often use with homologous structures.

Premise 1: If evolution is true, then seemingly different organisms will have homologous structures/genes
Premise 2: Homologous structures/genes exist
Conclusion: Therefore, evolution is true.

This doesn"t mean that the argument should be thrown out entirely, at least not yet. The argument would hold if the evolutionist proves that evolution is the only sufficient condition for these homologous structures/genes. The burden that most evolutionists that I"ve encountered fail to fulfill is disproving the alternative, common design. Proponents of ID and biblical creation such as myself point out that such structures/genes can be the product of an intelligent designer.

What do you guys think?

Why should we consider common design as an alternative, and how would you go about disproving it? In other words, what would it take to falsify intelligent design?
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 3:05:54 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 9:02:23 PM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Homologous structures and genes are often touted as indisputable evidence of evolution. Anyone who has taken a high school biology class are probably familiar with this argument. According to evolutionists, homologous structures such as skeletal components of vertebrates

http://www.bio.miami.edu...

are evidence
that such organisms share a common ancestor which the theory of evolution predicts. However, the argument itself is perched on flawed logic. The logical fallacy the argument is guilty of is affirming the consequent. Affirming the consequent can be technically mapped as such:

Premise 1: If P, then Q
Premise 2: Q
Conclusion: Therefore P

However, the problem can be better seen with such arguments if I provide an example.

Premise 1: If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich
Premise 2: Bill Gates is rich
Conclusion: Therefore Bill Gates owns Fort Knox

Despite the premises being true, the problem is that Bill Gates owning Fort Knox is not the only sufficient condition to be rich as in reality, Bill Gates is rich for running one of the largest tech companies in the world. Now I map out the argument that evolutionists often use with homologous structures.

Premise 1: If evolution is true, then seemingly different organisms will have homologous structures/genes
Premise 2: Homologous structures/genes exist
Conclusion: Therefore, evolution is true.

This doesn"t mean that the argument should be thrown out entirely, at least not yet. The argument would hold if the evolutionist proves that evolution is the only sufficient condition for these homologous structures/genes. The burden that most evolutionists that I"ve encountered fail to fulfill is disproving the alternative, common design. Proponents of ID and biblical creation such as myself point out that such structures/genes can be the product of an intelligent designer.

What do you guys think?

It is not that homologous structures could only happen with evolution, and could not happen with creationism. It is that evolution predicts homologous structures and there is no reason for there to be so much homology if evolution was false and God made them.

In fact if we don't find that animal groups follow homologous structures then it is unlikely that evolution is true. If all life is related and is nested in a family tree then the species should share a lot of DNA and have these structures. Natural selection and mutations would take existing structures and tweak them instead of completely replacing them especially if there was not a lot of time to evolve.

If God made life then he might use homologous structures but being very powerful he certainly would not need to and could follow many design patterns. Almost all land animals have five fingers, why would God stick to this number for mammals? A few animals have 4 or 3 but even most of them have the other finger being reduced or used for something else.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 6:07:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 9:02:23 PM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Homologous structures and genes are often touted as indisputable evidence of evolution. Anyone who has taken a high school biology class are probably familiar with this argument. According to evolutionists, homologous structures such as skeletal components of vertebrates

http://www.bio.miami.edu...

are evidence
that such organisms share a common ancestor which the theory of evolution predicts. However, the argument itself is perched on flawed logic. The logical fallacy the argument is guilty of is affirming the consequent. Affirming the consequent can be technically mapped as such:

Premise 1: If P, then Q
Premise 2: Q
Conclusion: Therefore P

However, the problem can be better seen with such arguments if I provide an example.

Premise 1: If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich
Premise 2: Bill Gates is rich
Conclusion: Therefore Bill Gates owns Fort Knox

Despite the premises being true, the problem is that Bill Gates owning Fort Knox is not the only sufficient condition to be rich as in reality, Bill Gates is rich for running one of the largest tech companies in the world. Now I map out the argument that evolutionists often use with homologous structures.

Premise 1: If evolution is true, then seemingly different organisms will have homologous structures/genes
Premise 2: Homologous structures/genes exist
Conclusion: Therefore, evolution is true.

This doesn"t mean that the argument should be thrown out entirely, at least not yet. The argument would hold if the evolutionist proves that evolution is the only sufficient condition for these homologous structures/genes. The burden that most evolutionists that I"ve encountered fail to fulfill is disproving the alternative, common design. Proponents of ID and biblical creation such as myself point out that such structures/genes can be the product of an intelligent designer.

What do you guys think?

Just because two theories are consistent with observations does not make them equally valuable. For instance, Last Thursdayism is the premise that the universe and everything in it was created last Thursday in such a way as to make it appear much older. Last Thursdayism holds that all our memories were created last Thursday, along with buildings, momentos, photo albums, old movies...anything you can think of. It is completely unfalsifiable, and therefore it has no value as a theory.

Intelligent Design is similar. Evolution predicts homology. Intelligent Design does not. If homologous structures were not observed between species, then evolution would be falsified, but ID would go happily on, its proponents saying, "See, we told you so!" It is this immunity from falsification that makes ID a non-scientific theory.
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 6:48:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 9:02:23 PM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Homologous structures and genes are often touted as indisputable evidence of evolution. Anyone who has taken a high school biology class are probably familiar with this argument. According to evolutionists, homologous structures such as skeletal components of vertebrates

http://www.bio.miami.edu...

are evidence
that such organisms share a common ancestor which the theory of evolution predicts. However, the argument itself is perched on flawed logic. The logical fallacy the argument is guilty of is affirming the consequent. Affirming the consequent can be technically mapped as such:

Premise 1: If P, then Q
Premise 2: Q
Conclusion: Therefore P

However, the problem can be better seen with such arguments if I provide an example.

Premise 1: If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich
Premise 2: Bill Gates is rich
Conclusion: Therefore Bill Gates owns Fort Knox

Despite the premises being true, the problem is that Bill Gates owning Fort Knox is not the only sufficient condition to be rich as in reality, Bill Gates is rich for running one of the largest tech companies in the world. Now I map out the argument that evolutionists often use with homologous structures.

Premise 1: If evolution is true, then seemingly different organisms will have homologous structures/genes
Premise 2: Homologous structures/genes exist
Conclusion: Therefore, evolution is true.

This doesn"t mean that the argument should be thrown out entirely, at least not yet. The argument would hold if the evolutionist proves that evolution is the only sufficient condition for these homologous structures/genes. The burden that most evolutionists that I"ve encountered fail to fulfill is disproving the alternative, common design. Proponents of ID and biblical creation such as myself point out that such structures/genes can be the product of an intelligent designer.

What do you guys think?

There is a third view: the structuralist view, that homologies are the result of natural biological law.