Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Jonathan Wells rates homology as one of the top scientific problems with evolution theory

arroba Email

In this second item in the series, Jonathan Wells discusses the similarity “in the bones in the human hand and the wing of a bat” (technically homology), which Darwin considered evidence for common descent. But, Wells notes,

Yet animals and plants possess many features that are similar in structure and position but are clearly not derived from a common ancestor with those features. The camera eye of a vertebrate and the camera eye of a squid or octopus are remarkably similar, but no one thinks they were inherited from a common ancestor that possessed a camera eye. The spines of South American echidnas and North American porcupines are remarkably similar, yet echidnas give birth by laying eggs, while porcupines give birth to live babies after nurturing them in a womb, like human beings. This fundamental difference means that echidnas and porcupines had very different origins, and they did not inherit their spines from a spiny common ancestor. The folds of skin between the forelimbs and hind limbs of Australian flying phalangers and North American flying squirrels are very similar. Yet the former give birth to fetuses that crawl into a pouch to complete development, like kangaroos, while the latter nurture their fetuses in a womb, like human beings. Again, they had very different origins.

Jonathan Wells, “Top Scientific Problems with Evolution: Homology” at Evolution News and Science Today (February 11, 2022)

So, Wells explains, “similarity of structure and position is evidence for common ancestry, except when it isn’t.”

It’s not clear, at that point, what problems the claim of common ancestry is supposed to address. If it’s true, it’s true but if we can’t use similarity of form as a reliable guide, how do we know it is true?

The whole series to date is here.

Note: The article is excerpted from Jonathan Wells’s chapter in The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith: Exploring the Ultimate Questions About Life and the Cosmos (2021)

same traits evolved many times independently in evolutionary unrelated species
This is actually a refutation of natural evolution as opposed to an example of it. Why? Because if true, it shows unlimited power for this naturalistic process. But every species is limited. Each species has to live in an ecology where if it developed continually into an entity with superior capabilities it would destroy the ecology. This doesn’t happen so every species has a built in limitation on how much it can change. But this contradicts the constant developing of new capabilities that naturalistic processes would inevitably find and leave more offspring. Why would these processes suddenly stop? The answer is, they wouldn’t. Therefore they cannot exist. jerry
and, my blog offers tons of other examples where the same traits evolved many times independently in evolutionary unrelated species (according to Darwinists, these claims are not mine, i am quoting only mainstream Darwinian papers). for example, here we can see, that a very complex trait (bioluminescence - light emission) requires repeated evolution at multiple levels !!!
"Multi-level repeated evolution of complex traits: 94 independent origins of bioluminescence" https://stuffhappens.info/multi-level-repeated-evolution-of-complex-traits-94-independent-origins-of-bioluminescence/
94 times ????? more examples here: https://stuffhappens.info/ PS: seriously, what rational person can buy this Darwinian stuff, especially this alleged MULTI-LEVEL repeated evolution ? Another example of multi-level repeated evolution would be C4/CAM photosynthesis (60 independent origins) ... What is make more sense ? Common design or random mutations ? martin_r

Leave a Reply