At work don't have time to post but you're perfect transition has problems like number of digits and etc... your theology is very poor. Quoting someone who added infant baptism and a lot of others theological problems don't help it. You can decline the book of Genesis all you want but don't say god choose evolution. If he did he would have said it. Way too many contradictions four evolution to fit into Genesis as you have learned. You say I decline to comment but I stated it was a tetrapod. And you was supposed to show me all the links for shark evolution. Still waiting. And as you have learned people have believed in creation and young earth for a very long time don't know how many times I need to prove this to you with links to historical documents.
Since right now I don't have time to explain everything to you I will leave you some reading material
Sir Gavin says that there is no doubt whatever that the forelimb in the newt and the lizard and the arm of man are strictly homologous,inherited with modification from the pectoral fin of fishes 500 million years ago. The elbow and wrist joints are identical,and their hands end in five fingers. The bones and muscles also correspond. The shock comes when a careful study of their comparative anatomy reveals that they do not occupy the same positions in the body. "The limbs of vertebrates are always formed from material that is contributed from several adjacent segments of the trunk. In the newt,the forelimb is formed from trunk segments 2,3,4,and 5; in the lizard from 6,7,8,and 9; in man from trunk segments 13 to 18 inclusive." He explains how this is determined embryologically and anatomically.
Embryology was de Beer's basis for questioning the validity of homology as evidence for evolution. He said that progress in early embryology made such strides there are two levels on which the relations of homology and embryology can be studied:
1. Level one–the correspondence of places of origin of homologous structures in the fertilized egg or embryo of related species 2. Level two–the induction of tissues to undergo differentiation
At level one,de Beer says that the prospective fates of embryonic structures are well known,and they can be traced back to their place on the egg or young embryo of related species. [de Beer,p. 13] They can be observed and proved by experiment. In other words,the wrongful application of homology by evolutionists has been debunked by the scientific method.
Sir Gavin gives us some examples of this logical approach: use of the scientific method to evaluate evolutionary claims. The alimentary canal in vertebrates can form from:
1. the roof of the embryonic gut cavity (sharks) 2. the floor (lampreys,newts) 3. roof and floor (frogs) 4. the lower layer of the embryonic disc,the blastoderm,that floats on the top of heavily yolked eggs (reptiles,birds)
It is evident that homologous structures are known to develop from varying locations in the egg or embryo,depending on the species. Therefore,says de Beer, if the origin of the homologous structures is not from the same part of the egg or position of the cells in the embryo,then they are not genetically related because they are not under the control of homologous genes. If they are not genetically related,they are not the result of descent with modification from a common ancestor.
He draws the same conclusion from a different set of observations. In one species of Polygordius,a primitive worm (primitive is subjective),the trunk of the future worm develops inside the body of the larva,while in another species,the trunk develops outside the larva as a worm-like extension. The adults of both species are virtually indistinguishable. Similar differences are seen in the development of certain mollusks,although the adults are nearly identical.
At level two de Beer studied homologous relations by inducing embryonic tissues to differentiate by diffusing substances from a master structure called an organizer. One study showed that the dorsal lip of a newt embryo can be grafted anywhere into the body of another embryo and will induce the surrounding tissues to differentiate into all the structures characteristic of a vertebrate embryo. If these tissues had been left undisturbed,they would have differentiated into entirely different structures (notochord,segmental muscle plates,kidney tubules spinal cord, brain with eyes,etc.),proving that the nature of a structure does not depend on the place of origin. This should be very disturbing to those who wish to apply homology to the battery of evidences for evolution. Homologous structures should originate at the same places in all descendants of a common ancestor,otherwise the homology has nothing to do with descent.
In another example,de Beer says that if the optic cup is removed in one species of frog the eye lens will not develop,while in another closely related species the lens does develop. He says it cannot be doubted that the lenses of these two species are homologous,yet they differ completely in their mechanism of determination and differentiation. The genes involved are not homologous.
In summary,he says:
"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find 'homologous' genes, except in closely related species,has been given up as hopeless."
He understands the logical absurdities,quoting S.C. Harland who said that the genes coding for the homologous structures must have become wholly altered during the evolutionary process! This should alarm geneticists,computer scientists,and linguists. It simply doesn't make sense,and de Beer says so:
"But if it is true that through the genetic code,genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts of their normal manner,what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs,the same 'patterns' in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered."
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/Homology.html
Production of similar forms from dissimilar pathways is also common at later stages of development. Many types of animals pass through a larval stage on their way to adulthood,a phenomenon known as indirect development. For example,most frogs begin life as swimming tadpoles,and only later metamorphose into four-legged animals. There are many species of frogs, however,which bypass the larval stage and develop directly. Remarkably,the adults of some of these direct developers are almost indistinguishable from the adults of sister species which develop indirectly. In other words,very similar frogs can be produced by direct and indirect development,even though the pathways are obviously radically different.
The same phenomenon is common among sea urchins and ascidians. (Raff,1996)
Even the classic example of vertebrate limbs shows that homology cannot be explained by similarities in developmental pathways. Skeletal patterns in vertebrate limbs are initially laid down in the form of cartilage condensations, which later ossify into bone. The sequence of cartilage condensation is the developmental pathway which determines the future pattern of bones in the limb. Yet similar bone patterns in different species (i.e.,homologies) arise from different sequences of cartilage condensation. (Shubin,1991) In the words of biologist Richard Hinchliffe: “Embryology does not contribute to comparative morphology by providing evidence of limb homology in the form of an unchanging pattern of condensation common to all tetrapod limbs.” (Hinchliffe,1990,p. 121 [emphasis added])
The constancy of final patterns despite varying pathways has prompted developmental biologist Gunter Wagner to suggest that homology might be due to conserved developmental “constraints”. (Wagner,1989) Wagner’s critics, however,object that this notion is too vague to be useful. Although developmental constraints emphasize the fact that embryos are capable of producing similar end-points by a variety of routes,they do not constitute a naturalistic mechanism accessible to empirical investigation.
So embryology has not solved the problem of homology. In 1958,Gavin de Beer observed that “correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells in the embryo,or of the parts of the egg out of which the structures are ultimately composed,or of developmental mechanisms by which they are formed.” (de Beer,1958,p. 152 [emphasis added]) Subsequent research has overwhelmingly confirmed the correctness of de Beer’s observation. Homology,whether defined morphologically or phylogenetically, cannot be attributed to similar developmental pathways any more than it can be attributed to similar genes. So far,the naturalistic mechanisms proposed to explain homology do not fit the evidence.
http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp
2
