Are shared characteristics the strongest case for Darwinism?
Milton describes homology to be by far the strongest primary evidence we have for evolution, for common descent, and for Darwinian processes of mutation and natural selection.
Homology is the name given to the anatomical correspondence between different species that biologists and palaeontologists have noted and studied.
Darwin, in The Origin of Species, writes on the significance of homology, saying:
“What can be more curious than that the hand of man, formed for grasping, that of a mole for digging, the leg of a horse, the paddle of a porpoise, and the wing of the bat should all include similar bones in the same relative position?”
Homology on a microscopic level
Milton extends this theory to say that if the Darwinian interpretation of homology is correct, then we would expect to find the same homologies at the microscopic level as we do at the macroscopic level – this however is not what is found.
The Australian molecular biologist Michael Denton writes of this issue in his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis:
“The validity of the evolutionary interpretation of homology would have been greatly strengthened if embryological and genetic research could have shown homologous structures were specified by homologous genes and followed homologous patterns of embryological development.
Such homology would indeed be strongly suggestive of ‘true relationship; of inheritance from a common ancestor’. But it has become clear that the principle cannot be extended this way. Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology”
Denton gives examples in his book of such findings, stating that something such as the kidneys in vertebrates are produced in many different ways:
“In fish and amphibia, the kidney is derived directly from an embryonic organ known as the mesonephros, while in reptiles and mammals the mesonephros degenerates towards the end of the embryonic life and plays no role in the formation of the adult kidney, which is formed instead from a discrete spherical mass of mesodermal tissue, the metanephros, which develops quite independently from the mesonephros.”
Lack of Graduation of Divergence
Fundamental to the process of Darwinian evolution is the divergence of simple species into more advanced ones, from fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals.
Milton explains that through a biochemical lens, there is no evidence for this, as when we look to the cell, we find that the land-dwelling vertebrates—amphibians, reptiles, and mammals—all have the same level of isolation from one another in terms of protein divergence, as they do to fish. There is no graduation of divergence as one would expect in an evolutionary sequence.
Denton comments saying:
“At a molecular level there is no trace of the evolutionary transition from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. So amphibia, always traditionally considered intermediate between fish and the other terrestrial vertebrates, are in molecular terms as far from fish as any group of reptiles or mammals”
Primitive Man
Milton turns to the evidence for the existence of a primitive man – some sort of ape-human hybrid that shows the intermediate stages of our own evolution. He states that:
“The position today is that all the fossil remains which were previously assigned some intermediate status between apes and humans have later been definitely reassigned into categories of either extinct ape or human”
Neanderthal Man
Perhaps the most popular find relating to the supposed ape-like ancestor of modern-man is that of the Neander Valley remains – where a skullcap and limb bones of a ‘Neanderthal man’ were uncovered by quarrymen in 1875.
Milton writes saying:
“The Neanderthal man was depicted as a shambling brute, who walked with an apelike gait, on the edge of his feet, his low sloping brow denoting his retarded mentality and antisocial tendencies. He was unquestionably, thought Schaffhausen, part-ape, part-human and ancestor to modern humans.”
Only in the 1950s, when comparable remains were discovered throughout other continents worldwide, was the Neanderthal man properly re-evaluated.
“It was found that some of the original type of material belonged to an individual whose bones were thickened and deformed by osteoarthritis and that Neanderthal man’s posture was probably the same as modern humans. Evidence was also found that far from predating Cro-Magnon (modern) humans, the Neanderthals lived at the same time and possibly mixed freely with Cro-Magnons” writes Milton.
This so-called ‘primitive’ man was known for his far from primitive behaviours, so much so that in an article written for The Quarterly review of Biology, Cave and Strauss concur that if given a bath and a suit, the ‘Neanderthal’ would pass unnoticed in the New York Subway.
Was it not for their evidenced ability to cook with fire, craft garments from animal hides, and build shelters, then perhaps the Neanderthal would be classified as some subspecies. At present, however, they are classified as a member of the species Homo Sapiens, with Milton pointing out that any of one of us could be among his descendants.
Australopithecus
Raymond Dart, a professor of anatomy at the University of Witwatersrand in the early 1920s, arranged for workers at a nearby quarry to hand in any fossils discovered during their work.
In one of the batches sent to him from the quarry, he discovered a cast with what he felt were uniquely hominid brain features. Though anatomically undeveloped in comparison to humans, the cast exceeded the development of any living ape, leading Dart to name his discovery Australopithecus africanus (named ‘the man-ape of South Africa’) in an article for the science magazine Nature.
Milton comments on this discovery far more positively than other modern findings, saying:
“Today, despite a century of ‘missing link’ newspaper headlines Australopithecus is the only fossil find which stands any chance at all of being placed in the missing link category and is enthusiastically described by many Darwinists as ancestral to humans”
As promising as this discovery was, zoologist Solly Zuckerman and his colleagues led the charge in identifying Australopithecus as an extinct ape rather than a missing link in human evolution.
In the 1950’s, Zuckerman and his team compared the structure, bones, and teeth of the ‘man-ape of South Africa’ with that of modern apes and humans.
Writing of his findings, Zuckerman says:
“In the first place, our safest inference from the available facts is that the brains of the fossil Australopithecus did not differ in size or conformation from those of such modern apes as the gorilla. In the second we may conclude that the fossils provide no significant evidence of the major decrease in size of jaws and teeth which is presupposed by the thesis that the Hominidae evolved from non-human primate forms. And thirdly the evidence is also clear that the skull of the Australopithecus was balanced on the vertebral column as in apes rather than as in man”
In laymen’s terms, the remains that were found by quarrymen back in the 1920’s were those of an extinct ape. This was also the findings of Darwinist Dr. Charles Oxnard, who’s computer analysis of Australopithecus led him to conclude that the fossil was unconnected to humankind’s ancestry.
Additional findings
Milton summarises by filtering through the finds of other so-called missing links, including the famous ‘Lucy’ and ‘Homo habilis’, pointing out the various flaws and objections overlooked by Darwinists keen on portraying the finds as evidence for evolution. To see these cases explored, and others cited, in greater depth, read Richard Milton's book - Shattering the Myths of Darwinism.
コメント