Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Non-circular Definition of Homology/Analogy
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5930 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 1 of 12 (399377)
05-05-2007 10:08 AM


In discussing (read: debating) evolution with one of my classmates, I used homologous structures as an example/proof of evolution. I know it's not the best argument, but I think it can work.
Anyway, the problem was that both of us were a little rusty in the nomenclature of evolutionary biology, and he didn't remember what homology was, and I couldn't give an explanation that didn't assume evolution to be true (which I know is often pointed out by creationists, as it's on the EvoWiki claims page).
So, I ask, what is a good definition of homology and analogy?
I propose this:
Analogy: similarity between two organisms that is due to adaptation to perform a function
Homology: similarity between two organisms that is not due to adaptation to perform a function
So, for example, the shape of the wings of a penguin are similar to the flippers of a seal, as both have adapted to perform the same function, so can be called analogous. But, the bones in the wings of a penguin are still similar to that of other birds, for no functional reason, indicating homology.
I think I accurately prevented circularity in my argument here. I seem to be using adaptation, which is pretty similar to evolution, so I worry I may not have the best wording. If I put the word 'design' in there instead, it doesn't change it much, so I think it's pretty good. I'm aiming for it to address the idea of God reusing designs when there was no functional need to do so.
However, I fear these example aren't as precise as they could be. And also, I'm not sure whether a structure could be considered both analogous and homologous to the same structure. I don't know whether they are usually, but my definitions don't seem to allow it.
So, do you agree with my definitions? If not, can you help me fine-tune these definitions, in any aspects?
(Evolution section would be a good place, but it could also fit in the ID section I guess)

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by mick, posted 05-08-2007 3:26 AM Doddy has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5930 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 4 of 12 (399590)
05-06-2007 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by JustinC
05-06-2007 8:02 PM


That's a good definition Justin. Personally, I would have put 'adaptation' instead of 'explanation'. On the other hand, that might not be the wisest thing...
I think this argument is not the best one to use off the bat since it requires a little bit of meditation on the subject before the "Ohh..I get it!" moment comes about.
The guy I was talking to is a biochemistry student. He, like me, has also done a first year subject on evolutionary biology. I'm confident he will do some meditation on it.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by JustinC, posted 05-06-2007 8:02 PM JustinC has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5930 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 12 of 12 (400154)
05-10-2007 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by JustinC
05-09-2007 5:32 PM


JustinC writes:
especially considering their claim that creatures were created by an omnipotent being: why use the same developmental pathway?
I wonder that as well. One of the explanations given by AiG for why ratites have wings and related structures (such as a broad sternum) was "design economy":
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
quote:
It is a result of ”design economy’ by the Creator. Humans use this with automobiles, for example. All models might have mounting points for air conditioning, power steering, etc. although not all have them. Likewise, all models tend to use the same wiring harness, although not all features are necessarily implemented in any one model. In using the same embryological blueprint for all birds, all birds will have wings.
Why an omnipotent being, to whom nothing can be difficult, would need to take shortcuts is beyond me.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by JustinC, posted 05-09-2007 5:32 PM JustinC has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024