The cloak of logic developed by the proponents of the theory of evolution was revealed for all to see in this program. The basis of this series of documentaries was to do with claims regarding convergent evolution and homology.
Animal Planet drew attention to behavioural and structural similarities between living groups and species which are distant from one another in terms of biology or geography. It then claimed that all these similarities evolved separately under pressure from similar environmental conditions. (Convergent evolution.)
On the other hand, it also drew attention to certain structural features shared to a much greater extent in the animal kingdom and suggested that these developed during evolution from an alleged common ancestor. Animal Planet cited one example of homology frequently resorted to by evolutionists: pentadactylism (five digits on the end of a hand or foot). It claimed that the tortoise, a reptile, and the bat, a mammal, both possess five digits and that this structure took shape and diversified among different living things according to environmental conditions and lifestyles while still keeping its fundamental essence.
Let us expand on the subject of the claims of convergent evolution with a few examples, since this is less well known than the homological argument. Some claims made by Animal Planet on this subject are:
One of the species of apes living in the New World, the screeching apes, and the velvet apes living in Africa from the
In another part of this series of documentaries the chirping of birds was cited, and it was suggested that the sounds made by birds in different regions had emerged under pressure from similar evolutionary conditions.
In another example, it was maintained that in such very biologically different creatures as birds and insects, wings were developed for purposes of flight.
Yet another example claimed that the similar hydrodynamic design in penguins, a member of the bird family, and dolphins, which are mammals, stemmed from their living in similar environmental conditions.
The point which needs to be known with regard to all these is this:
If living things which are regarded as closely related in the imaginary evolutionary family tree possess a common structure, these organs are ‘homologous.’ If living things regarded as distantly related on that same tree possess exactly the same features, then these are known as ‘analogous.’ (Convergent evolution is the name attached to the latter.)
In such a situation, the question of whether an organ is analogous or homologous depends not on the scientific evidence but on evolutionists’ preconceptions. For that reason, homology and convergent evolution are both claims which are far from having any scientific validity, which are formed according to the circumstances at hand, and which are resorted to as a way of escape. In short, these are totally insufficient when it comes to accounting for the complex structures and variety in living things.
For more information on this, which reflects a major inconsistency on the part of evolutionists, see The Invalidity of the Morphological Homology.2003-07-05 00:00:00