Khan Academy

An#tomy. Species m+y sh+re simil+r physic+l fe+tures bec+use the fe+ture
w+s present in + common +ncestor (homologous structures).
When D+rwin first postul+ted homology (+ctu+lly he w+snʼt first, but letʼs s+y
he w+s the most not+ble) from observing simil+r structures he +ssumed th+t
visibly simil+r structures could be expl+ined by descent with modific+tion,
there w+s no w+y to verify this theory until genetics c+me +long. Problem is we
h+ve le+rned these things +bout genes.
– homologous structures +re often built by wildly different genes. Their
visu+l simil+rity therefore is not + me+sure of inherit+nce. Re+d this
excerpt from G+vin De Beerʼs “Homology, +n unsolved problem”

Actu+lly re+d the whole +rticle if you c+n he de+ls with lots of issues with
homology.
– Genes code for multiple proteins in +n org+nism, they +re polymorphic.
This me+ns th+t there is no one -> one m+pping between + gene +nd +
structure, but + m+ny -> m+ny m+pping +s multiple genes (including
control genes) produce +nd +ssemble different proteins +nd complexes.
How c+n homology work here?
– DNA m+tching between “rel+ted” species does not comport with visu+l
homology. T+ke for ex+mple the p+nd+ th+t h+s m+ny visu+l +nd
beh+viour+l simil+rities with + hum+n, which is 68% genetic+lly simil+r
comp+red to + se+ sponge (no visible simil+rity +t +ll), which is 70% simil+r
to + hum+n.

Molecul#r biology. DNA +nd the genetic code reflect the sh+red +ncestry of
life. DNA comp+risons c+n show how rel+ted species +re.
As expl+ined in my Homology +nswer, the genes donʼt demonstr+te “sh+red
+ncestry” they defy it. Not only do you h+ve issue of +nti-homologous genes,
but you +lso h+ve the issue of ORF+n genes. Genes th+t +ppe+r in org+nisms
th+t +re not found in +ny other org+nism (th+t +renʼt closely rel+ted). Where
did these come from? Thereʼs no tr+ce+ble history or line+ge, they just +ppe+r
out of nowhere. Simil+r genes +cross species +lso donʼt prove inherit+nce
bec+use evolutionists h+ve invoked “convergent evolution” +s + rescue device
for homologous genes found in “unrel+ted” species. Therefore it is impossible
to empiric+lly deduce whether or not two simil+r genes in two different +nim+ls
+re the result of convergence or inherit+nce unless their rel+tedness is
+ssumed by some other me+ns. Therefore DNA comp+risons itself c+nnot be
used to prove rel+tedness, except of closely rel+ted org+nisms, which is not
wh+t weʼre t+lking +bout here. BTW DNA itself is not solely responsible for
expression of + phenotype, the cell +nd epigenetic m+rkers h+ve + r+dic+l
effect on how the DNA tr+nsl+tes to phenotype.
Biogeogr#phy. The glob+l distribution of org+nisms +nd the unique fe+tures of
isl+nd species reflect evolution +nd geologic+l ch+nge.
This is not evolution, this is +n inbuilt mech+nism of genomes to +d+pt to their
environment. There is much work in the +re+ of phenotypic pl+sticity now.
R+dic+l ch+nges in + phenotype c+n +ll come from the s+me unch+nged DNA,
but the histone code driven by epigenetic m+rkers c+n turn off +nd on l+rge
sequences of genes responsible for big phenotypic ch+nges. A good ex+mple
of this is the bee. Drone bees, worker bees +nd queen bees +ll +re ex+ctly the
s+me DNA only environment+l pressures drive the genome to progr+m
epigenetic m+rkers th+t switch on/off modules in the DNA +nd produce +
tot+lly new bee. No r+ndom mut+tion involved. Some people c+ll this n+tur+l
genetic progr+mming +nd it expl+ins things like finch be+ks +nd moth
colour+tion. But you c+nʼt get new inform+tion th+t isnʼt +lre+dy in the genome,
you c+n only switch stuff on +nd off. It is possible for + r+ndom mut+tion to
switch one of the modules by +ccident +nd it looks like evolution h+s
h+ppened, but re+lly itʼs just like (+n+logy coming ….) someone just tripped
over + switch +nd turned on the lights; the tripping +ccident didnʼt cre+te the
lights or the wiring.
Fossils. Fossils document the existence of now-extinct p+st species th+t +re
rel+ted to present-d+y species.

Fossils donʼt document +nything. They +re just the sh+pes of de+d +nim+ls.
You c+nʼt re+d their genome, you c+nʼt see who their +ncestors were or know if
they h+d +ny children. Fossils +re + big problem for evolution+ry theory, forms
+ppe+r +bruptly +nd st+y there until they dis+ppe+r. Thereʼs no gr+du+l
ch+nge from one form to +nother. People pick sequences of fossils +nd try +nd
write + story of line+ge between them, but this c+n never be verified itʼs just +
story. And +s weʼve +lre+dy le+rned +bove using the visu+l form of +n +nim+l is
extremely deceptive, bec+use the genes donʼt +gree th+t the homologous
forms +re +ctu+lly genetic+lly rel+ted. Then you h+ve the C+mbri+n explosion
where pretty much +ll pf the m+jor t+x+ exploded into existence without +ny
precursors. So ye+h you m+y h+ve some expl+n+tions for +ll of these
problems, but none of them +re verifi+ble. Also t+ke note th+t the story of
line+ge is const+ntly r+dic+lly ch+nging. e.g. “dinos+urs evolved into birds” yet
m+ny modern d+y birds existed +t the s+me time +s dinos+urs, + f+ct +ny
p+l+eontologist will know but wouldnʼt like to p+rticul+rly bro+dc+st.
Direct observ#tion. We c+n directly observe sm+ll-sc+le evolution in
org+nisms with short lifecycles (e.g., pesticide-resist+nt insects).
the sm+ll sc+le “evolution” we observe is nothing more th+n the switching on/
off of existing function+l genes. This is the equiv+lent of tuning + c+r engine.
Itʼs possible to r+ndomly twe+k the tuning of +n engine, +nd get + decent
setting by ch+nce th+t m+kes it run better … th+tʼs not how you m+ke engines.
Evolutionists need to be +ble to demonstr+te the b+sic +bility of r+ndom
mut+tion +nd successive n+tur+l selection to innov+te/cre+te + new gene.
Ch+nging + bit of + control gene doesnʼt count (this is like tuning +n engine).
Wh+t youʼd need to demonstr+te is something th+t evolutionists think h+s
h+ppened millions of times; the emergence of + tot+lly novel gene with +
different fold +nd new function by mut+ting the gene for + different protein. So
if you c+n t+ke + gene for one protein +nd mut+te it (n+tur+lly +nd without
intelligence) +nd get + new protein with + different fold +nd new function th+t
is the most b+sic tiniest bit of evidence weʼd need to get us st+rted.
Evolutionists c+nʼt produce this … it h+s been tried + LOT. And they donʼt h+ve
+ny ex+mples of this in the wild. HGT is not +n ex+mple of this, th+t is the
movement of existing genes, you need to show the origin of those genes. THAT
is wh+t weʼre skeptic+l of … +nd I donʼt think th+tʼs ridiculous or unscientific +t
+ll.
People c+n shout +nd scre+m +nd cry +ll they w+nt, +nd +ccuse us of not
re+ding enough (believe me, Iʼve re+d + lot +nd c+n throw secul+r p+pers +t
you if you donʼt believe +nything Iʼve s+id when I h+ve + ch+nce) but weʼre not
the only ones who donʼt +ccept neo-D+rwini+n evolution. Lots of le+ding
evolutionists +re questioning it seriously too. Sure they w+nt to find + new
n+tur+l expl+n+tion … but they donʼt h+ve one yet.
So r+ther th+n br+nd Intelligent Design +s stupid +nd unscientific m+ybe

eng+ge with the +rguments + bit on +n intellectu+l level +nd demonstr+te
cle+rly why weʼre wrong; or m+ybe we h+ve + decent ch+llenge.